维权三板斧:起诉、新闻和示威

0
1083

Xiaoming Guo of Waterloo

(附:安省滑铁卢华西村的居民急需您的援助。投资华裔未来,捐款为华裔维权打官司)

华人教育水平高,财富积累厚,就是智力和财力难以转化为政治力量,不习惯捐款是其中原因之一。维权三板斧:新闻话语权,游行集会示威,还有打官司。这每一样都需要花钱。打官司不是容易的事情,一句话说得不对,或者一个程序走错了,就可能前功尽弃。所以,打官司要请律师,请律师要花钱。请律师打官司,就是财力变成政治力量的方法之一。

打官司维权,让我们从小岩事件说起。

60 年前 9 个黑人学生进入小岩中学【 1 】,是黑人民权运动的一个重要里程碑,它标志着反对种族隔离的重大胜利。

1954 年,美国法院裁决学校种族隔离违宪【 2 】。 1957 年,小岩中学同意接收黑人学生,但是,当 9 个优秀的黑人学生上学第一天时,确被军队阻止进入学校。后来军队撤离后,黑人学生回学校时,又被上千暴民暴力阻止入学。黑人记者 Dorothy Butler Gilliam 【 3 】 不顾老板阻拦,报道了这一暴力事件【 4 】,迫使总统干预,变军人阻拦为军人护送这 9 个学生上学。

这一事件和许许多多的其它民权运动事件一样,媒体报道起了举足轻重的作用【 5 】。尽管 1954 年法院裁决了种族隔离违宪,但不能阻止国家机器继续违宪,除非有新闻监督。如果 60 年前不是黑人记者违背老板意志把小岩学校的暴民世界通过电视放到民众的餐桌前,那 9 个学生或许根本无法在小岩中学上学【 6 】。

透过 60 年前的小岩暴民事件,我们可以管窥美国的民主社会运作。第一,法律赋予的权利不是少数族裔现实享受的权利,还必须经过法庭过堂具体事件才能确认。但是,由于个人时间、财力和技能有限,上诉过堂往往不在个人能力范围之内。黑人通过 NAACP 【 7 】组织耗费巨资为黑人上诉无数次,坚持三十年后才于 1948 年首次为黑人打赢一场官司【 8 】,如人是生而平等的, 1954 年到法院告公立学校违宪,才把学校平等的权利争取回来【 2 】。第二,法院裁决了的权利,还需新闻监督才能得以保障。 1954 年法院裁决公共学校种族隔离违宪过了十年后,美国黑人只有 10 %上没有种族隔离的学校。其中最为严重的是 1959 年发生在维吉尼亚州爱德华王子县的事件,当法庭下令公共学校不得种族隔离后,全县关闭了公共学校,白人孩子都被组织到私立学校或教会学校上学,致使全县 1700 多学龄黑人丧失教育权利达 4 年之久,使得黑人文盲率暴涨【 9 】。坚持学校种族隔离是美国历史上最严重的蔑视法庭裁决、蔑视法律的事件。小岩事件表明没有新闻监督无法使得法庭裁决生效。

如今人们所认识的世界,就是媒体报道的世界。媒体庆祝美国国庆,不回顾华裔修铁路的历史贡献,民众就认为世界各地到北美的移民只有华裔是吃免费午餐。媒体不报道华裔所受到的歧视,民众就只知道少数族裔问题只是黑人问题。

如今,民主社会是自由社会得到大多数人的认同。然而,华裔在民主社会中无法保障自身权益,甚至被主流社会边缘化和妖魔化。这种现象有很多原因,如华裔传统是躲避官司,实际上,不打官司无法维护自身权益。又如,华裔缺少税收倾斜的教会势力,黑人马丁·路德·金是牧师,黑人总统竞选者奥巴马也有牧师背景。在北美,教会是少数族裔集资和推动政治运动的最有效途径之一。

华裔地位与华裔贡献及华裔财产和智慧不符的重要原因之一,就是华裔没有用新闻自由保障自己应有的公民权利。现在华裔媒体有中文,对象只是华裔自己,这不行。试想,如果 60 年前的小岩暴民事件只有黑人自己看,如何影响总统决策?其二,一些华裔加入了主流媒体,却成了主流标榜平等自由的花瓶,没有积极报道华裔的贡献和华裔遭受的不公,与保护华裔权益不相干。试想, 60 年前 Gilliam 遵守老板的指示不报道小岩暴民事件,那么她还能被称为黑人记者吗? 

李文和事件,华裔为李文和打赢了官司。但是,媒体对华裔整体像形的损害已经无法挽回。说李文和是间谍时,媒体反反复复报道;李文和平反了,就只有中文媒体报道。李文和冤案虽然在法律上解决了,但是,媒体妖化华裔的事实也完成了。华裔在法庭上为李文和打赢了官司,但是由于主流媒体的选择性报道,华裔就业遭受了更多的“间谍嫌疑”歧视,事实上压缩了华裔在美国的平等就业权利。

华裔要有自己的记者、要有自己的不仅仅局限于华裔听众的英文媒体,才能提高华裔在北美的社会地位。 

黑人建立NAACP坚持不懈地打了三十年官司,耗资巨大,终于改善了黑人的政治和社会地位。华裔财富比黑人多,更有财力打官司。

【1】 http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/travel/civilrights/ak1.htm

【2】 http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/early-civilrights/brown.html

【3】 http://www.thehistorymakers.com/biography/biography.asp?bioindex=688

【4】 http://civilrightsandthepress.syr.edu/panelist.html

【5】 http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2005/h090805.html

【6】 rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e082307_littlerock.rm

【7】 http://www.naacp.org/home/index.htm

【8】 http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case33.htm
【9】http://www.vahistorical.org/civilrights/pec.htm

小岩暴乱事件记录片

小岩事件始末文档片

关于小岩事件的来龙去脉及其与布朗诉教育局一案的关系,请参看【美国宪法案例】(97)库泊诉艾伦。

附:安省滑铁卢华西村的居民急需您的援助

持有异议居民于8月22日,以非盈利社区组织 “Waterloo West Community Association”的名义正式向 OMB 提交了申诉。目前,510 Erbsville Rd. 改建已经暂停及延缓。

持有异议居民得到了数位资深的多伦多OMB律师,土地规划师,建筑师等专业人士的指导和协助!(很可惜,KW本地的相关专业人士多因利益冲突等理由不能为反改建居民提供正常的专业服务)。

目前,持有异议居民需要筹集大约$3.5万-$5.0万的费用。专门用于正式雇佣律师,土地规划师及工程师等专家,帮助持有异议居民顺利完成维权的司法申诉。OMB申诉过程需要雇佣一位资深的OMB律师(收费$2.5万)及土地规划师等专家所出具的针对性技术报告和出庭做证(另外还需要2-4自愿出庭做证人的附近居民)

如果在截止时间,募集的捐款不能达到最低的$3.5万目标,所有捐款将全额退回给捐款人(请捐款人留下联系方式).

为保护捐款人隐私,不公布捐款人的具体信息(有特殊授权,愿意公布的除外)。及时向大家公布募集到的资金总数。欢迎监督.

捐款目标:$3.5万-$5 万 

捐款方式如下:
1. TD Bank 
Account Name:Waterloo West Community Association
Account Number: 3659 5222299
(TD的客户可以在TD的柜台直接转账。非TD的客户,可以在TD柜台用现金或支票存入WWCA帐户. 在TD柜台转账后,请email告知存款日期及款额,以便开给您收据。邮件地址:

fund510objection@gmail.com”)

2. E-transfer 
fund510objection@gmail.com
(网上银行直接通过该邮件转账)

3. 当面现金或支票捐款请联系Tina 或Wang Li

一路走来,异常的艰难,感谢大家的不放弃,感谢大家所付出的每一个努力!感谢每一份的慷慨支持!

详细的OMB申诉理由见英文部分.

From May 2016, in response to the application to rezone the property at 510 Erbsville Rd in Waterloo from Agricultural to (Holding) Institutional and Green One, a group of voluntary residents sharing the common concerns started action to voice their concerns under the name, “Residents Opposing 510 Erbsillve Rd. Rezoning”.
On June 26 2017, the City of Waterloo approved the above application and passed subsequently the Zoning By-Law No. 2017-052 to allow the property rezoning for spiritual use. For legal consideration and for operational conveniences, an organization, Waterloo West Community Association (“WWCA”) has been incorporated to represent the concerned residents. To continue with our objection to this property rezoning Bylaw of the City of Waterloo, an appeal was presented to the City Clerk for filing with Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”).

Next, WWCA is planning to secure a legal representative and hire professionals such as a land use planner and engineers effectively push our issues as raised in the appeal with OMB.

For that purpose and at this stage, we are campaigning for your STRONG financial support. Please be assured that all raised fund from you shall be used directly to hire a legal representative and professionals in the fields of land use planning, related engineering, and environment issues as we submitted in our appeal to OMB.

WWCA shall produce a weekly Financial Statements. Also, at any time you may request in writing for a real time update of the number of donates and the fund total.
We suggest you provide your detailed contact information including your name, email address, mailing address, etc to fund510objection@gmail.com, for the following reasons:
We could issue a receipt to you
We could add you to our email list for future updates of the appeal progress.
Most importantly, if we were not able to raise enough fund to hire the above-mentioned professionals, we could refund you of your donation in full.

For privacy and confidential reasons, your contact information shall not be made public (unless you specially make such authorization otherwise).

Fundraiser Target: $35,000 – $50,000

How to make a donation:

1. Branch Deposit to the WWCA Bank Account:
Bank: TD
Account Name: Waterloo West Community Association
Account Number: 3659 5222299
(By cash, cheques or direct debit from your TD account)

2. E-transfer:
Email Address: fund510objection@gmail.com

Let’s continue to work hand-in-hand and keep our community from disturbance.

Sincerely Yours,
Residents Opposing 510 Erbsillve Rd. Rezoning,
Incorporated as Waterloo West Community Association

Please find in the attached our appeal reasons to OMB: 
Phase II: The rezoning of the land from Agricultural to Institutional represents an inappropriate use of the subject land which is designated Low-Density Residential in the Official Plan. This is particularly true as the Applicant has expressed intentions to construct a new, larger spiritual building on the lands in the future. The matter of converting a single-detached house into a place of worship is premature before the whole project is evaluated for traffic, noise, parking, environmental concerns a functional servicing study, an urban design brief and site plan, sustainability etc. The City of Waterloo should not approve to rezone part of the lot without knowing what the rest of the lot will look like in terms of the Official Plan, Zoning for the whole site, Site Plan provisions etc.

The use of a Holding (“H”) provision with respect to the future proposal has the effect of approving a future place of worship while taking away the rights of concerned residents to voice their concerns or appeal it. A Holding (“H”) provision that effectively approves a larger future development (even though removal is subject to the completion of additional technical studies) is premature, inappropriate and does not represent good planning. Issues that are relevant to the suitability of the proposed zoning and that deal with potential impacts to others should not be left to a holding provision.

– Traffic concerns with respect to Erbsville Road;
– Parking concerns – lack of parking to accommodate proposed use;
– Noise concerns associated with special events and celebrations;
– Adequacy of services for proposed use;
– Wrong location;
– Decrease of Property Value; and
– Rezoning Trend Setting.

Phase I: The City of Waterloo permitted the existing structures to be used for spiritual uses before updated specifics whether they are of sufficient size or whether they conform to the building code for its proposed uses. This practice raised concerns in terms of health and safety of the uses proposed and the potential occupants, including, but not limited to the following aspects, emergency and fire plan, the building capacity, stormwater management, site access, sidewalk safety & turning vehicles issues, parking issue, and negative environmental impacts from the proposed septic tank.

留下一個答复

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here