Video: Hosting a small dinner with good friends celebrating our friendship on Friday August 6 2021 Lives can be so fragile, let’s treasure every moment we are together. 請了好朋友晚宴慶祝我們的友誼. 生命可以如此脆弱，讓我們珍惜我們在一起的每一刻.
https://youtu.be/3HebK5-KGmE
https://vimeo.com/584395716
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/543497863540210/?d=n
Why is the Top Chinese Swimmer not at the Tokyo Olympics ? How Sun Yang was eliminated 為什麼中國頂級游泳運動員沒有參加東京奧運會？ 孫楊是怎麼被淘汰的 by Rick Sterling @ricksterling99 rsterling1@protonmail.com
Introduction
Why is the all-time greatest Chinese swimmer Sun Yang not at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics ? The short answer is that he has been banned from competitive swimming for four years by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). He has been banned for four years not for doping, but for an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV).
What lays behind this? What are the essential facts? Was the decision just, or biased? This article will review the case and offer suggestions to improve the process.
CAS Panel admission and decision
The CAS decision about Sun Yang came recently, in mid-June. At the very end of the 88-page decision, there is a crucial acknowledgment:
‘The Panel considers it pertinent that there has been no allegation that the Athlete was doped on 4 September 2018. Indeed, given that Mr. Sun tested negative eight times in the prior two weeks, the likelihood that he would have tested positive, had the samples of 4–5 September 2018 been analyzed in Beijing, appears remote.’
Despite this acknowledgement, the CAS Panel decided that Sun Yang was guilty of an ADRV.
The controversial and aborted test
The controversy involves an aborted attempt to take blood and urine samples from Sun Yang on the night of 4 September 2018. Sun Yang arrived home late at night after travelling all day from Jakarta, Indonesia, where he had competed at the Asian Games. He was about to commence a one-month vacation.
A doping test team from the Swedish American company, International Doping Tests & Management (IDTM), met Sun Yang and said they wished to take ‘out of competition’ blood and urine samples. There was a female Doping Control Officer (DCO), a female Blood Collection Officer (BCO) and male Doping Control Assistant (DCA).
There are conflicting reports about what transpired over the next few hours, but these are essential facts:
• After seeing the DCA surreptitiously taking photographs of him, Sun Yang became suspicious and asked to see the authorisation papers of the test team.
• The DCO did not have paper IDTM accreditation, but did have an image on her cell phone. The BCO and DCA had no proof of authorisation from IDTM. Nor did they have paperwork to authorise this specific out of competition test. All they had was a generic annual authorisation for IDTM to do testing for the International swimming federation (FINA).
• Sun Yang consulted his doctor and the Chinese swim team leader asking what to do. Both said the test should be stopped until the test team can provide proper documentation.
• The DCO consulted with her supervisor in Sweden. They then said to Sun Yang they could not leave the equipment behind. A member of Sun Yang’s group broke the container holding the blood vial so the IDTM team could leave with their equipment. The blood vial was preserved and is still under refrigeration at the doctor’s hospital.
• Over the next days, Sun Yang reported that the test was aborted because the test team lacked accreditation. The leader of the test team, the DCO, reported that Sun Yang had committed a ‘Refusal or Failure to Comply’ with the test.
The FINA Doping Panel
FINA convened a Doping Panel to examine the events and determine whether Sun Yang had committed an ADRV. It held a hearing and issued its Decision in early January 2019. They determined that ‘Sun Yang has not committed an anti-doping rule violation’ because the test team did not have the required accreditation documentation to take blood and urine samples from the athlete.
The FINA Doping Panel also faulted the test team leader for not making Sun Yang aware that she would consider this incident to be a ‘Refusal or Failure to Comply’ and thus a potential ADRV.
WADA and CAS
For whatever reasons, the Canada-based World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) strongly objected to the FINA Doping Panel Decision. It filed an appeal with CAS against Sun Yang and FINA.
In November 2019, the first CAS Panel held a public hearing about the case. In February 2020, CAS issued its Decision that Sun Yang had committed an ADRV and was to be banned from swimming for eight years. Some western competitors and sports media cheered this Decision. Others were more objective and thoughtful. The Decision was criticised in articles here and here.
Based on evidence revealed in the article, ‘Why the Sun Yang Decision Should be Overturned‘, Sun Yang’s Attorneys won their appeal to the Swiss supreme court (SFT). There was compelling evidence the President of the CAS Panel was biased, if not racist.
As a consequence, the CAS Decision was set aside, and the SFT ruled that CAS would have to rehear the case. A new CAS Panel was created.
The second CAS Panel had new members, but a similar background. All three jurists were senior white western European men. Additionally, they all have ties to the United States. Although the second panelists claim they were not influenced by the decision of the first CAS Panel, their decision making was essentially the same: they say Sun Yang is guilty of an ADRV. With relaxed punishment requirements, he is now banned for four years and three months, beginning February 2020.
FINA Doping Panel vs. CAS Panels
Why did the FINA Doping Panel conclude that Sun Yang did not commit an ADRV while the CAS ruled that he did? Here are the essential differences:
CAS says they were, even though two of the three test team members had no proof that they were authorised by the test contractor, IDTM. CAS said that only the test team leader, the DCO, needed proof of accreditation.
The CAS Decision says: ‘ISTI imposes a specific threshold for notification. The threshold seeks to ensure that an athlete understand that a demand for his samples is legitimate and duly authorized—all the while avoiding the imposition of unnecessarily burdensome administrative criteria or the creation of yet more opportunities for gamesmanship by bad actors.’
In contrast, FINA said that all members of a test team need to be trained, accredited, and be able to provide proof of such. ‘FINA members (swimmers) must know with certainty under whose authority they are being tested and that every official attending at the sample collection session has been properly trained, appointed and authorized by the Sample Collection Agency’.
Which is right? The ISTI is ambiguous and can be interpreted both ways. ISTI Annex H says: ‘Sample Collection Personnel requirements start with the development of the necessary competencies for Sample Collection Personnel and end with the provision of identifiable accreditation’. There was debate over whether ‘personnel’ was singular or plural.
One thing is certain: the DCA was not properly trained. The controversy was sparked because he took personal photographs, which is a significant violation of protocol and the athlete’s privacy.
CAS says yes; it was sufficient to show the annual authorisation paper from FINA to IDTM, nothing more. FINA said no; there needs to be more than an annual authorisation. The test team must show evidence that they are authorised to carry out the specific mission.
Which is right? Again, the ISTI is ambiguous. It seems reasonable to require a test team entering a person’s personal space to show proof of the fact they have authorisation to collect bodily fluid samples from that individual at that time. The test team must have a mandate to go to the Athlete’s residence and collect the samples. Why not show it to the athlete to confirm this is a legitimate intrusion? Is an athlete right to be suspicious when all that is produced is an letter from an international federation (FINA) authorising a company (IDTM) to collect samples on its behalf, and proof that a DCO works for that company?
CAS says yes, even though the BCO only had an old junior nurse certificate in her possession. FINA said no. It explains, ‘What is certain is that she did not produce unequivocal evidence of her qualifications to draw blood from the athlete, as required in the ISTI’. In Annex E (see right), the ISTI clearly states the blood collection must meet local standards and regulatory requirements.
FINA says no. The DCO did not make that clear and to further complicate things, she signed a statement of events written by Sun Yang’s doctor.
‘The ISTI is clear in Annex A 3.3.a) that the DCO must tell the Athlete, in a language he can understand, the consequences of a possible Failure to Comply. Explaining the risks that certain conduct might lead to a violation is not sufficient. The DCO must go further and clearly articulate that she is treating the Athlete’s conduct as a Failure to Comply and that the following consequences will apply.’
CAS says the DCO warned the athlete sufficiently. It claims that the DCO told the athlete the consequences of ‘Refusal to Comply’.
CAS says: ‘Nothing in Annex A.3.3(a) requires a DCO, on the spot, to proclaim a definitive anti-doping rule violation. The Panel therefore has no hesitation in disavowing this artificially high threshold. It is enough for Sample Collection Personnel to tell an athlete, in language he can understand, the consequences of a possible failure to comply. As to whether an actual violation has occurred, this is for the Testing Authority to determine and prosecute; such a proclamation is not within any DCO’s competence.’
Which is right? One thing is clear: the ISTI wording is poor and misleading. All athletes know that the consequence of a Refusal to Comply is an ADRV. This is comparable to a policeman telling a civilian the consequences of a crime (you go to prison) instead of telling them they are being charged with a crime.
Under ISTI regulations 5.4.8 and 7.4.6, the DCO is supposed to document what happened. The DCO did not document the events at the time, only afterwards. Promoting more confusion, she signed the statement by Sun Yang’s doctor. If she was only signing the statement as a witness, it seems that should have been explicitly indicated.
Summary of differences: FINA Doping Panel vs. CAS Panel
In summary, the FINA Doping Panel emphasised that all test team members must be authorised. In contrast, the CAS Panel advocated fewer requirements for a doping test team. Only the test team leader needs to have credentials and they do not have to show proof that their specific visit is authorised. The blood collection nurse does not need to prove she is qualified. CAS expressed preference to avoid ‘burdensome administrative criteria’ and a concern for ‘gamesmanship by bad actors’.
The WADA Guidelines regarding Blood Collection support the position of Sun Yang in various respects. Dismissing this, CAS says: ‘Guidelines are recommendations, not law, and they do not alter the minimum requirements of the ISTI’. They ignore the fact that Blood Sample Collection Guidelines have ‘ISTI’ prominently printed on the cover.
Questions and observations about this case
At the November 2019 public hearing, Sun Yang said he thought there were “dark forces” behind the effort to ban him. He did not say much more, but the suggestion was clear enough. Having studied this case in some depth, I believe his concerns are warranted.
If there is a ‘bad actor’ here, it might be the private test contractor, IDTM. At each step of the events, it seems to have provoked rather than resolved the dispute. They selected as DCO a person who Sun Yang had complained about when she was DCA in a previous testing mission. It brought an improperly trained DCA who proceeded to surreptitiously take photographs. They declined to get a substitute DCA. The CAS Decision outlines how it falsely claimed it needed to take the test equipment. It did not tell Sun Yang that it would file a Refusal to Comply charge.
The DCO was a Chinese woman who lives abroad. She was a DCO for less than a year. Her supervisor in Sweden, Romanian Tudor Popa, had only nine months experience at the time of the incident. He is now Vice President of International Testing at IDTM.
For the past 30 months, WADA has pursued this case against Sun Yang at great cost in time and resources. It is fair to ask why. It is not as though Sun Yang was avoiding being tested or making a habit of objecting. He is understood to be one of the most tested athletes in the world, tested once every two weeks, on average.
Nearly all the tests have been performed without any problem at all. Logic would dictate that Sun Yang had no motive to take prohibited substances. At the Asian Games, where he was tested six times, he won four Gold plus two Silver medals. It was not like he was a struggling swimmer who might be tempted to get some little extra advantage.
The bias of the first CAS Panel was acknowledged by the Swiss Federal Court. Given this, it is legitimate to question if WADA would have pursued this case if the swimmer had been American, British, Canadian, or Australian. It was a huge investment of time and resources. However, WADA has pursued other cases1 against athletes from other countries that appear to be more about protecting the system of rules that it has created, rather than convicting a doping cheat.
In the end, WADA ‘achieved’ the elimination of a Chinese athlete even though he had not doped. What kind of achievement is that?
Was the second CAS Panel any less biased? Their decision suggests no. At each critical point, they favour minimising requirements for the test team contractor. They hint that an athlete who is concerned with the test integrity may be a ‘bad actor’. They critique the FINA Doping Panel decision as showing ‘leniency’ towards Sun Yang and ‘stringency’ toward the testing process.
The CAS Panel considers that requiring each test team member to have identifiable credentials would be ‘unnecessarily burdensome administrative criteria’. Enforcing this requirement might give ‘opportunities for gamesmanship by bad actors’.
It should be noted that WADA had a serious conflict of interest in this case. It was the expert witness while also being the appellant.
Suggestions to improve the process
WADA has become an influential force in global sport. It says it is ‘impartial, objective, balanced and transparent’. It publicly asks for feedback. Here are some suggestions considering the Sun Yang case:
• WADA documentation, including all Guidelines and the ISTI should be critically reviewed, and areas of ambiguity cleared up.
• A genuine mix of international athletes should review the requirements for a test team. Should it be confirmed that all members of a test team are trained, accredited, and have proof of such? Should it be confirmed that an ‘out of competition’ test team intruding into an athlete’s personal space needs to show authorisation for this mission?
• An athlete should be given a written warning if a test team is going to report a potential ‘Refusal to Comply’. There should be a standard ‘Refusal to Comply’ form. Such notices or warnings are standard in society. This simple measure would probably have avoided the entire costly controversy with Sun Yang.
• The composition of WADA should be more diverse to avoid appearing, or in fact being, biased.
Conclusion
The FINA Doping Panel was correct and Sun Yang should be competing in the Tokyo Olympics .
Why is the Top Chinese Swimmer not at the Tokyo Olympics? How Sun Yang was eliminated
US and EU said will help African nations with COVID19 vaccines. Unlike China, US and EU expect a lot in return. If that is the way how it was done in the past (see picture). I think most African nations will say “no thanks”. That maybe the reason why when US and EU promote fake propaganda campaign against China, and China providing free to low cost COVID19 vaccines with absolutely no strings attached, most African Nations appreciates their 70 years of friendship with China that never robbed, steals or exploit them. History is the best witness. 美國和歐盟表示將幫助非洲國家提供新冠病毒疫苗。 與中國不同，美國和歐盟期望得到很多回報。 如果這是過去的做法（見圖）。 我認為大多數非洲國家會說“不，謝謝”。 這也許就是為什麼當美國和歐盟對中國進行虛假宣傳，中國免費提供低價或免費的新冠病毒疫苗時，絕對沒有任何附加條件，大多數非洲國家讚賞他們與中國 70 年的友誼，中國從未對他們國家或人民進行搶劫、偷竊或剝削他們 . 歷史是最好的見證.
Exclusive: US ‘Worker Rights Consortium’ extorts $300,000 from Chinese, US firms by fabricating Xinjiang ‘forced labor’ issue 獨家：美國“工人權益聯盟”捏造新疆“強迫勞動”問題，從中美企業勒索30萬美元 by Liu Xin, Fan Lingzhi and Yang Ruoyu Aug 06 2021
Editor’s Note:
Do “human rights” have a price? The answer is Yes, when they are used by the West and the US to interfere with other countries’ domestic affairs. The Global Times has learned exclusively from sources that the US-based nongovernmental organization (NGO) Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) blackmailed a Chinese company and its US cooperative partner for $300,000 by threatening to hype up fabricated “forced labor” issues related to China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.
Creating inflammatory topics
The Global Times learned exclusively from the national security department that on October 17, 2018, the legal representative of a garment manufacturing company in Hotan Prefecture of Xinjiang, which is affiliated to a company in Zhejiang Province, received a phone call from the Associated Press and The New York Times, asking him to explain on the company “using illegal labor to manufacture US brand clothes.” One day before, the company’s name appeared in local media reports for its contributions to local poverty alleviation work and the news also introduced the function of the vocational education and training centers in helping reduce poverty.
Although the legal representative refuted the claim that the company was using illegal labor, the AP released a report later, saying that the company hired people from “re-education camp” to make clothes, and it also cited untenable claims of “1 million Muslims are detained,” made up by anti-China scholars and separatists.
Nathan Ruser, a cyber-policy researcher at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), appeared in the AP report, claiming that by analyzing satellite images, he found that the Hotan-based apparel factory and a so-called government-run training camp were connected by a fenced path.
The AP story also targeted US-based Badger Sportswear, saying that according to US customs data, in April 2018, Badger began importing 100 percent polyester T-shirts and pants from the Hotan company, and the address on the shipping records is “the same as for the detention camp.”
The inflammatory report of the AP was later cited by other foreign media. Coincidentally, the Global Times noticed that Scott Nova, executive director of the WRC, released a statement almost at the same time when AP released its report, saying that it will “continue to seek further information from Badger concerning the production of its goods by internment camp detainees in Western China,” and that “simply announcing that it is ceasing placing orders with this particular factory is not an adequate response.”
Without any evidence, the WRC continued to hype the topic and pressure the Zhejiang company and even asked it to release the Hotan company employees’ personal information, including their gender, name, job title and salary.
On June 24, the WRC released an assessment, saying that “based on communication with Badger and with Chinese human rights researchers and on review of US Customs records and relevant corporate documents,” the WRC “was able to swiftly confirm” that Badger had been produced goods in plant with “forced labor” being used.
The WRC also noted in the assessment that its “investigation” involved reviews of satellite imagery, “a range of original documents, as well as secondary source material from other researchers.” It also admitted that it was unable to interview workers in Xinjiang but ascribed it to the “repressive environment” in Xinjiang.
The Global Times has tried to contact the legal representative of the Hotan company for an interview but was declined as the person did not want the company to be involved in media reports to avoid further trouble.
Nothing found in field survey
Is it true as the WRC claimed that there is no possibility to have field investigation in China’s Xinjiang? Or is it their tactics to give pre-set conclusions?
The Global Times has learned that pressured by the WRC and the US customs department, Badger turned to Ropes&Gray law firm to conduct an investigation and the latter contacted with the Hong Kong branch office of Alvarez&Marsal, a global professional service firm. The Hong Kong office then commissioned the task to its Shanghai office.
Without acquiring qualification for any domestic investigation, the Shanghai company sent employees in December 2018 to Xinjiang and Zhejiang to “investigate” on whether the Hotan company is located within the training center and whether there is forced labor.
On April 7, officials from the market supervision and statistical departments began actions against the Shanghai company’s illegal investigation. Meanwhile, police officers from national security department also told the Global Times that after receiving tip-off from local residents, they began to work on the case for its suspicion of jeopardizing national security.
The Global Times learned from police officers that during the investigation, employees of Shanghai Alvarez&Marsal said that they did not find any evidence of “human rights violations” and workers of the Hotan company enjoyed freedom with their salary being paid in accordance with market rates.
Employees from Shanghai Alvarez&Marsal expressed anger with the US for not admitting the result of their investigation and insisting on pressuring Chinese companies. “News in the US [on Xinjiang] is absurd… What they want is not what we saw… our report clearly did not meet their demands… they want something negative,” an employee who went to Xinjiang for the field survey said.
Alvarez&Marsa’s Shanghai office is not the only company that had conducted “investigations” on the case. Following the Western media’s continued hyping of “forced labor” topics about the Hotan company, in December 2018, Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production (WRAP) also denied human rights violations in the company after investigation.
In March 2019, Business Social Compliance Initiative also concluded after investigation that the Hotan company did not hire children as labor or use “forced labor.” In April 2019, WRAP’s third review also ended up with conclusion of no violation of human rights.
The WRC had turned blind eyes to the above investigations and conclusions. The Global Times has learned that during the year of 2019, the WRC kept pressuring the legal representative of the Hotan company and issued “assessment” to accuse the company of “forced labor” and “violations of human rights,” claiming the local government in Xinjiang was involved. The WRC also pressured Badger to end cooperation with companies owned by the legal representative and threatened to work with Western media to continue to play up the issue.
Despite Badger and the Hotan company’s continued communications with the WRC in regard to the third-party investigation result, the WRC insisted in working with the Human Rights Watch and other NGOs to pressure Badger not to source from the Hotan company.
Cash in self-deception
Why is WRC insisting in doing so? Its final purpose was unveiled – asking for $600,000 from Badger as “charitable donation.” After several negotiations with WRC’s Scott Nova, the final figure was set at $300,000. In order to maintain business and reduce losses, the Zhejiang company, which the Hotan company is affiliated to, agreed to split the fees with badger, the Global Times has learned.
According to documentation acquired by the Global Times, Badger agreed to make three contributions of $100,000 to human rights organizations “designated by Human Rights Watch (HRW),” with the first payment excepted to be made in November 2019. The document said that after Badger makes the first payment, it would deduct $6,250 on a monthly basis from the Zhejiang company open invoices over 24 months, totaling $150,000.
The Global Times also learned that the WRC used similar tactics to force an apparel company in Bangladesh to pay for “charitable fees.”
According to a report released on WRC’s website, although Badger reaffirmed there is no forced labor being used, it agreed with the “necessary remediate measures offered by the WRC, including the $300,000. According to minutes from an October 25, 2019 WRC meeting published on WRC’s website, the WRC director of strategic research Penelope Kyritsis and executive director Scott Nova gave Human Rights Watch the responsibility for identifying Uygur exile groups to receive the Badger money.
The HRW, an organization founded during the Cold War, has been found actively engaged in an anti-China campaign focusing on fabricating baseless rumors related to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and the Xinjiang region.
In the end, where did the money finally go? The US independent website The Grayzone unveiled in a report in April that when asked by The Grayzone which “independent human rights organizations” received the payout by Badger, the WRC’s Kyritsis fumbled for an answer. “Um, there was one group in Kazakhstan,” she said, but claimed she could not recall its name.”
“There is no so-called forced labor in China’s Xinjiang. The WRC has no legal right to supervise companies. By hyping evidence-free allegations, it continues to harass companies and force them to make ‘donations.’ This is blackmail,”Li Wei, a research fellow at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations and an expert on counter-terrorism, told the Global Times.
Li noted that using ridiculous excuses to deny access to Xinjiang, the WRC sent money to anti-China NGOs and a “Uygur exile” organization, including the World Uyghur Congress (WUC), which has been supporting terrorism.
WUC is a terror organization that stands behind many terror attacks in China’s Xinjiang region. It came from the World Uyghur Youth Congress (WUYC), which has been listed as a terror organization in China. WUC’s current leader, Dolkun Isa, is also a member of the WUYC. There is also evidence of WUC’s former leader and separatist Rebiya Kadeer’s talking over the phone with terrorists who led attacks in Urumqi on July 5, 2009, said Li.
The expert noted that one of the biggest problems for global counter-terrorism work is that “the more we fight, the more terrorism spreads,” and one reason is some countries adopt double standards on counter-terrorism.
“Under the excuse of human rights and charity, some NGOs also played a shameful role in blocking global counter-terrorism work. Instead of supervising these NGOs, the US and some Western countries are conniving at their illegal activities and using them to attack countries they dislike,” Li said.
Li said he was surprised to see NGOs blatantly blackmailing companies, which they used to do secretly. “This may be done together with the US’ efforts to hype Xinjiang-related topics to pressure China. Under this circumstance, more NGOs may follow. China’s national security department needs to take measures,” said Li.
Video: Who is Better Cotton Initiative (BCI)? Why is it funded by US Government? How did they created fake news to demonize Chinese and China? 誰是良好棉花倡議 (BCI)？ 為什麼它由美國政府資助？ 他們是如何製造假新聞來妖魔化中國和中國人的？
https://youtu.be/mrTpNPfcGjk
https://vimeo.com/583910260
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/542659113624085/?d=n
Chinese Execute ‘Huge’ Theater Level Exercise; Russia & PRC Start Joint Exercise. 中國執行“巨大”劇院級練習； 俄羅斯和中國開始聯合演習.
WASHINGTON: China is in the midst of “a large-scale exercise, a theater level exercise of huge scope and scale. It’s something that really US forces haven’t done, you know, since Reforger — and you’re in the ’80s — of that scale. And they’re pulling it off.” 華盛頓：中國正處於“一場大規模的演習之中，一場範圍和規模巨大的戰區級演習。 這是美國軍隊真正沒有做過的事情，你知道，自從 Reforger——你在 80 年代——達到這種規模。 他們正在把它拉下來。”
That was Marine Maj. Gen. Dave Furness, deputy assistant commandant for plans, policy and operations, speaking late Monday afternoon at Sea Air Space on Indo-Pacific security issues. 那是負責計劃、政策和行動的副助理指揮官海軍陸戰隊少將戴夫·弗內斯 (Dave Furness) 週一下午晚些時候在海空域就印度-太平洋安全問題發表講話.
Hillary Clinton: I don’t want my children to live in a world dominated by Chinese.” 希拉里克林頓：我不希望我的孩子生活在一個由華人主導的世界。”
US Government selling hatred with fake news and propaganda against China, Chinese and Chinese Americans in US and around the world is paying off big time. Hate Crimes against Chinese and Asian Americans in the United States increase by 363%. 美國政府種族歧視用假新聞和針對中國和中國人在全球尤其是在美國宣傳宣揚仇恨得到非常理想的回報. 美國針對華裔和亞裔美國人的仇恨犯罪增加了 363%. World Journal Newspaper San Francisco 美國加州舊金山世界日報 August 6 2021
Video: What does US robbing & stealing around the world in the name of fake freedom democracy human rights and rules of laws taught Americans lives in US. It is OK! In fact it is legal to steal up to US$950 not a crime. 美國以虛假的自由民主人權和法律規則的名義在世界各地搶劫和偷竊告訴美國人 什麼. 沒關係！ 在美國盜竊高達950美元是合法的，而不是犯罪.
https://vimeo.com/583801288
https://youtube.com/shorts/vMHaUXqaJoE
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/542529560303707/?d=n
As a vassal state of US using American’s doctrines, this is how the Canadian Government in the name of freedom democracy human rights and rules of law treating the Indigenous People. 作為美國的附庸國必須跟隨美國的做法, 這就是加拿大政府以自由民主人權和法律規則的名義對待加拿大原住民的方式.
Canada is Waging All-Front Legal War Against Indigenous People – After mass graves full of Indigenous children have been found, how can Canada justify ongoing land theft? by Justin Podur Aug 3 2021
Canada is developing a new image: one of burning churches, toppling statues, and mass graves. There are thousands more unmarked graves, thousands more Indigenous children killed at residential schools, remaining to be unearthed. There can be no denying that this is Canada, and it has to change. But can Canada transform itself for the better? If the revelation of the mass killing of Indigenous children is to lead to any actual soul-searching and any meaningful change, the first order of business is for Canada to stop its all-front war against First Nations. Much of that war is taking place through the legal system.
Canadian politicians have said as much, adopting a motion in June calling for the government to stop fighting residential school survivors in court. A long-standing demand, it has been repeated by Indigenous advocates who have expressed amazement in the face of these horrific revelations that the Canadian government would nonetheless continue to fight Indigenous survivors of systematic child abuse by the state.
To get a sense of the scope of Canada’s legal war on First Nations, I looked at a Canadian legal database containing decisions (case law) pertaining to First Nations. I also looked at the hearing lists of the Federal Court of Canada for ongoing cases. My initial goal was to identify where Canada could easily settle or abandon cases, bringing about a harmonious solution to these conflicts. Two things surprised me.
The first was the volume and diversity of lawsuits Canada is fighting. Canada is fighting First Nations everywhere, on an astoundingly wide range of issues.
The second thing: Canada is losing.
THE ATTACK ON INDIGENOUS CHILDREN AND WOMEN
In his 1984 essay “‘Pioneering’ in the Nuclear Age,” political theorist Eqbal Ahmad argued that the “four fundamental elements… without which an indigenous community cannot survive” were “land, water, leaders and culture.” Canada fights Indigenous people over land, water, fishing rights, mining projects, freedom of movement, and more. The assault on Indigenous nations is also a war against Indigenous children and women.
In the high-profile case of First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, laid out in detail by Cindy Blackstock, “the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations filed a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act alleging” in 2007 “that the Government of Canada had a longstanding pattern of providing less government funding for child welfare services to First Nations children on reserves than is provided to non-Aboriginal children.” The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) found in favor of the First Nations complainants in 2016.
Note that this isn’t about the history of residential schools. It’s about discrimination against Indigenous kids in the present day. “In fact, the problem might be getting worse,” writes Blackstock, compared with “the height of residential school operations.” As evidence, she refers to a 2005 study of three sample provinces showing a wide gap between the percent of First Nations children in child welfare care (10.23% percent) compared to a much lower rate for non-First Nations children (0.67 percent). In 2006, following the Canadian government’s repeated failures to act on the inequity described in this report (which also included comprehensive suggested reforms that had both moral and economic appeal), Blackstock writes, “the Caring Society and the Assembly of First Nations agreed that legal action was required.” The CHRT was very clear in its 2019 decision that the federal government should compensate each victim the maximum amount, which addressed the victims as follows:
“No amount of compensation can ever recover what you have lost, the scars that are left on your souls or the suffering that you have gone through as a result of racism, colonial practices and discrimination.”
In May 2021, Canada, which has spent millions of dollars fighting this case, tried to overturn the CHRT’s ruling.
Canada’s war on Indigenous children is also a war on Indigenous women. The sterilization of Indigenous women, beginning with Canada’s eugenics program around 1900, is another act of genocide, as scholar Karen Stote has argued. Indigenous women who had tubal ligation without their consent as part of this eugenics program have brought a class-action suit against the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, both of which had Sexual Sterilization Acts in their provincial laws from the 1920s in Alberta and 1930s in British Columbia until the early 1970s, and Saskatchewan, where sexual sterilization legislation was proposed but failed by one vote in 1930. A Senate committee found a case of forced sterilization of an Indigenous woman as recently as 2019.
THE LEGAL-FINANCIAL WAR ON FIRST NATIONS ORGANISATIONS
As Bob Joseph outlines in his 2018 book 21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act, Canada first gave itself the right to decide Indian status in the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857, which created a process by which Indigenous people could give up their Indian status and so become “enfranchised”—which they would have to do if they wanted to attend higher education or become professionals. The apartheid system was updated through the Indian Act of 1876, from which sprang many evils including both the residential schools and the assertion of Canadian control over the way First Nations govern themselves.
In 1927, when Indigenous veterans of World War I began to hold meetings with one another to discuss their situation, Canada passed laws forbidding Indigenous people from political organisation and from raising funds to hire legal counsel (and from playing billiards, among other things).
The Indian Act—which is still in effect today with amendments, despite multiple attempts to repeal it—outlawed traditional governance structures and gave Canada the power to intervene to remove and install Indigenous governance authorities at will—which Canada did continuously, from Six Nations in 1924 to Barriere Lake in 1995. As a result, at any given moment, many First Nations are still embroiled in lawsuits over control of their own governments.
Canada controls the resources available to First Nations, including drinking water. In another national embarrassment, Canada has found itself able to provision drinking water to diamond mines but not First Nations. This battle too has entered the courts, with a class-action suit by Tataskweyak Cree Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, and Neskantaga First Nation demanding that Canada not only compensate their nations, but also work with them to build the necessary water systems.
Canada dribbles out humiliating application processes by which Indigenous people can try to exercise their human right to housing. When combined with the housing crisis on reserves, these application processes have attracted swindlers like consultant Jerry Paulin, who sued Cat Lake First Nation for $1.2 million, claiming that his efforts were the reason the First Nation received federal funds for urgent housing repairs.
Canada uses the threat of withdrawal of these funds to impose stringent financial “transparency” conditions on First Nations—the subject of legal struggle, in which Cold Lake First Nations has argued that the financial transparency provisions violate their rights. Canada has used financial transparency claims to put First Nations finances under third-party management, withholding and misusing the funds in a not-very-transparent way, as the Algonquins of Barriere Lake charged in another lawsuit. An insistence on transparency is astounding for a country that buried massive numbers of Indigenous children in unmarked graves.
Win or lose, the lawsuits themselves impose high costs on First Nations whose finances are, for the most part, controlled by Canada. The result is situations like the one where the Beaver Lake Cree are suing Canada for costs because they ran out of money suing Canada for their land. When First Nations are winning in court, Canada tries to bankrupt them before they get there.
LAND AND RESOURCES ARE THE CORE OF THE STRUGGLE
The core issue between Canada and First Nations is land. Most battles are over the land on which the state of Canada sits, all of which was stolen and much of which was swindled through legal processes that couldn’t hold up to scrutiny and are now unraveling. “[I]n simple acreage,” the late Indigenous leader Arthur Manuel wrote in the 2017 book The Reconciliation Manifesto, this was “the biggest land theft in the history of mankind,” reducing Indigenous people from holding 100 percent of the landmass to 0.2 percent.
One of the most economically important pieces of land is the Haldimand tract in southern Ontario, which generates billions of dollars in revenue that belongs, by right, to the Six Nations, as Phil Monture has extensively documented. Six Nations submitted ever-more detailed land claims, until Canada simply stopped accepting them. But in July, their sustained resistance led to the cancellation of a planned suburban development (read: settlement) on Six Nations land.
Many of the First Nations court battles are defensive. Namgis, Ahousaht, Dzawada’enuxw, and Gwa’sala-’Nakwaxda’xw First Nations have tried to defend their wild fisheries against encroachment and pollution by settler fish farms. West Moberly, Long Plain, Peguis, Roseau River Anishinabe, Aroland, Ginoogaming, Squamish, Coldwater, Tsleil-Waututh, Aitchelitz, Skowkale, and Shxwha:y Village First Nations challenged dams and pipelines. Canada has a history of “pouring big money” into these court battles to the tune of tens of millions—small money compared to its tens of billions subsidizing and taking over financially unviable pipelines running through Indigenous lands—including that of the Wet’suwet’en, whose resistance sparked mass protests across Canada in 2020. The duty to consult First Nations on such projects is itself the outcome of a legal struggle, won in the 2004 decision in Haida Nation v. British Columbia.
First Nations who were swindled or coerced out of their lands (or water, as with Iskatewizaagegan No. 39 Independent First Nation’s case against Winnipeg and Ontario for illegally taking their water from Shoal Lake for use by the city of Winnipeg starting in 1913) fight for their land back, for compensation, or both. The Specific Claims Tribunal has 132 ongoing cases. In Saskatchewan in May, the tribunal awarded Mosquito Grizzly Bear’s Head Lean Man First Nation $141 million and recognition that they never surrendered their land as Canada had claimed they had in 1905. In June, Heiltsuk First Nation won a part of their land back.
First Nations also fight for their fishing rights in courts and out on the water, as settler fishers have physically attacked and tried to intimidate Mi’kmaw fishers on Canada’s east coast. In June, on the west coast, after the British Columbia Court of Appeals found against Canada, the federal government announced it wouldn’t appeal, dropping a 15-year litigation that restricted Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations fishing quotas.
DECOLONISATION JUST MIGHT BE INEVITABLE
Why does Canada keep fighting (and losing) even as its legitimacy as a state built on theft and genocide crumbles? It’s not merely the habits of centuries. It’s also the absence of any project besides the displacement of First Nations and the plunder of the land. Canada could take the first step to ending all this by declaring a unilateral ceasefire in the legal war. Too few Canadians understand that this would actually be a very good thing.
First Nations lived sustainably for thousands of years in these extraordinary northern ecosystems. Then the European empires arrived, bringing smallpox and tuberculosis among other scourges. Local extinctions of beaver and buffalo quickly followed, as well as the total extinction of the passenger pigeon.
Today’s settler state has poisoned pristine lakes with mine tailings, denuded the country’s spectacular forests, and gifted the atmosphere some of the world’s highest per capita carbon emissions (seventh in the world in 2018—more than Saudi Arabia, which was 10th, and the US, which was 11th). Indigenous visionaries have better ideas, such as those presented by Leanne Betasamosake Simpson and Arthur Manuel, or for that matter the Red Deal and the People’s Agreement of Cochabamba.
Under Indigenous sovereignty, Canadians could truly be guests of the First Nations, capable of fulfilling their obligations to their hosts and their hosts’ lands, rather than the pawns of the settler state’s war against those from whom the land was stolen.
Justin Podur is a Toronto-based writer and a writing fellow at Globetrotter. You can find him on his website at podur.org and on Twitter @justinpodur. He teaches at York University in the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change.
Newseek: Most countries in the world see the total number of gold medals as the supreme athletic nation. If the United States wants to be that country, then its athletes will need to probably win 10 more events (or more) by Sunday, which is when these Games come to a close. 世界上大多數國家都將金牌總數視為運動最高的國家。 如果美國想成為那個國家，那麼它的運動員可能需要在周日之前贏得 10 個（或更多）項目，也就是這些奧運會即將結束的時候.
The National Interest – Graham Allison: China winning geopolitical Olympics – China is winning the real olympics : In brief, the major findings of our report across the five arenas are these. First, China is not only rising. It has already risen to a point that it has upended the post-Cold War order: geopolitically, economically, technologically, militarily, diplomatically, and politically. Washington officials continue straining to see China in our rearview mirror. They insist that it is no more than what they call a “near-peer competitor.” Reality says otherwise. The time has come to recognize China as a full-spectrum peer competitor of the United States. As such, it poses a graver geopolitical challenge than any American living has ever seen. 中國贏得地緣政治奧運會 – 中國贏得了真正的奧運會：簡而言之，我們在五個領域的報告的主要發現是這些。 首先，中國不僅在崛起。 它已經上升到顛覆後冷戰秩序的地步：地緣政治、經濟、技術、軍事、外交和政治。 華盛頓官員繼續努力從我們的後視鏡中看到中國。 他們堅持認為這只不過是他們所謂的“近乎同行的競爭對手”。 現實另有說法。 是時候承認中國是美國的全方位競爭對手了。 因此，它構成了比任何美國人都見過的更嚴峻的地緣政治挑戰
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/geopolitical-olympics-could-china-win-gold-190761?page=0%2C1
Johnson Choi Biz