Search This Blog

Google Translate! Google Traducir! 嘗試“谷歌翻譯” ! "محاولة "مترجم جوجل! Попробуйте "Google переводить"!

Monday, November 22, 2010

Team Canada female athletes disqualified from Commonwealth silver medal, jailed Chinese democracy activist awarded with Nobel peace prize, and others in between (Part 2) – when violence is politically organized

(Continued from Part 1)

In 2006 when The Globe and Mail Journalist Jan Wong made the allegation that Marc Lepine, Valery Fabrikant and Kimveer Gill, the killers in the three mass shootings on Montreal university and college campuses since 1989, were victims of marginalization of immigrant minorities “in a society that valued pure laine” (pure laine refers to a person from an established French family), and caused a firestorm of condemnations including from the Canadian Parliament, Wong also made a trip to Beijing, China, where she had once served as the newspaper’s bureau chief, from 1988 to 1994.

In this 2006 China trip Jan Wong finally decided to look for an old Chinese acquaintance she had betrayed back in 1973 when – after she had gone to China as a 19-year-old “starry-eyed Maoist” in 1972 and become one of only two Beijing University foreign students – she informed the Chinese authority about a female student who sought her help to go to the United States. Only in 2006 did Wong realize that the girl was then sent to the countryside to do hard labor and suffered, and that during that difficult time of the Chinese Cultural Revolution most of the girl’s friends also had to denounce her; but Wong also felt relieved to see that the women was now doing quite prosperously. (Jan Wong, Beijing Confidential: A Tale of Comrades Lost and Found, 2007, Random House, Inc.; The one who didn’t get away”, by Brian Bethune, October 31, 2007, Maclean’s; and, “Lunch table turns on Wong”, November 13, 2007, Richmond News.)

1972 had been an historic year when Jan Wong first went to China, if one gives it a little more thought.

On February 21, 1972, Richard Nixon made a historic visit to China – the first by any U.S. President – and opened official dialogues between the two countries which had become staunch enemies after 1949 when the Communists triumphed in China. In his week-long visit Nixon met Chairman Mao Zedong and held extensive talks with Premier Zhou Enlai.(“Events in Presidential History: President Richard Nixon Arrives in China -- February 21, 1972”, Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia; and, “Record of Historic Richard Nixon-Zhou Enlai Talks in February 1972 Now Declassified”, The National Security Archive, The George Washington University.)

Then on May 22, 1972, Richard Nixon arrived in Moscow as the first U.S. President to visit the Soviet Union though it was the second visit for him – after one as Dwight Eisenhower’s Vice President in July-August 1959 during which he had the famous “kitchen debate” with the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. The 1972 visit launched a period of genuine détente between the two superpowers, and included the signing of the first permanent nuclear arms reduction treaty SALT I. (“On This Day, July 24, 1959: Khrushchev and Nixon have war of words”, BBC News; “Joint Communiqué, Moscow, 1972”, The Washington Post; and, Raymond L. Garthoff, Détente and confrontation: American-Soviet relations from Nixon to Reagan, 1994, Brookings Institution Press.)

Later in September 1972, the aptly named “Summit Series” of men’s ice hockey games between the Soviet Union national team and the Canadian national team were held and won by Canada. These 1972 Summit Series were the first between the two hockey superpowers, and have become so famous that the jersey worn by Canadian player Paul Henderson when he scored the winning goal has recently fetched an incredible $1 million US in an auction – the highest price ever paid for a hockey item. (“Summit Series”, Wikipedia; “Summit Series hero Paul Henderson battling leukemia”, February 20, 2010, Toronto Star; and, “Henderson's $1.2 million Summit Series jersey to tour Canada”, by Sean Leahy, September 28, 2010, Yahoo! Sports.)

Shortly afterwards in October 1972, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, a French Montrealer who had swept to majority power in 1968 in the mist of “Trudeaumania” and personal show of defiance against violent threats from Quebec separatists after ascending to the helm of the Liberal party, nearly lost an election amid “Trudeauphobia”, forming only a minority government propped up by the New Democratic party farther to the left. During his first term Trudeau had in 1969 shepherded in the Official Languages Act to establish French alongside English as Canada’s official languages, and in 1970 invoked the War Measures Act during the so-called October Crisis to handle the Montreal kidnappings of British diplomat James Cross and Quebec Cabinet minister Pierre Laporte by the leftwing separatist Quebec Liberation Front (FLQ). (“Pierre Elliot Trudeau & the demise of liberal Canadian nationalism”, by Keith Jones, October 10, 2000, World Socialist Web Site; “Pierre Trudeau: Captivating a Nation”, October 2000, CBC Learning; “First Among Equals: The Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, 1919-2000”, updated January 29, 2002, Library and Archives Canada; and, “Did Team Canada Save Pierre Elliot Trudeau?”, by Joe Pelletier, 1972SummitSeries.com.)

It was amid the atmosphere of historic East-West political thawing that Jan Wong travelled from Montreal to Beijing in 1972 – except that Montreal didn’t share that kind of warming and Jan Wong went to China to join the Cultural Revolution as a self-styled “Montreal Maoist”.

Montreal had been ‘red hot’ – the kidnappers of James Cross and Pierre Laporte had trained with Palestinian militants, Laporte was killed one day after the War Measures Act was invoked, and the kidnappers received safe passage to Cuba in exchange for releasing Cross. Jan Wong showed that she was no less so when the year after in 1973 – the year of the first Canadian Prime Ministerial visit to China by Pierre Trudeau who had been there twice prior to entering politics – Wong voluntarily reported to the Chinese Communist authority the student friend who had confided in her the wish to go to the United States. (J. L. Granatstein and Robert Bothwell, Pirouette: Pierre Trudeau and Canadian Foreign Policy, 1991, University of Toronto Press; Jan Wong, Red China Blues: My Long March from Mao to Now, 1997, Random House, Inc.; and, “Great Canadian Debates: The War Measures Act”, updated September 24, 2002, Centre for Canadian Studies, Mount Allison University.)

In fact, it wasn’t only Jan Wong and whoever her comrades but Canada’s main Maoist political party were based in Montreal. (Robert Jackson Alexander, Maoism in the Developed World, 2001, Greenwood Publishing Group.)

And it wasn’t until 33 years later in 2006, the same year she turned against the Quebec society’s “pure laine” attitude toward immigrant minorities, that Jan Wong bothered to find out what happened to, and reconcile with, the Chinese woman who and whose wish to go the United States she had betrayed in 1973.

Or as Jan Wong herself characterizes it – about the political significance of her rare 1972 invitation from the Chinese government for study at Beijing University (Jan Wong, Beijing Confidential: A Tale of Comrades Lost and Found, 2007, Random House, Inc.):

“When I arrived in China, I confused everyone, including myself. I was a Montreal Maoist who looked Chinese but couldn’t speak Chinese. …

… Looking back on the mystery of it call, I believe I was accepted at Beijing University because I was in the right place at the right time. After six years of Cult Rev xenophobia, Beijing was trying to thaw relations with the West. In 1971, it had invited the U.S. table-tennis team to Beijing. In 1972, I was the logical next step, the first Canadian to study there since the Cultural Revolution.”

I see! As a logical step of the time the Chinese government made sure to invite a “Montreal Maoist” before opening more widely to the outside world, and 16 years later in 1988 – it happened to be the year I came to Canada – The Globe and Mail, which had long considered itself “Canada’s National Newspaper” (“The Globe and Mail History”, 2010, Globe Media), chose this “Montreal Maoist” to represent Canadian journalism to the Chinese people – as its 13th Beijing correspondent.

I can already imagine hearing the whisper – but how could The Globe and Mail have had anyone better when Jan Wong’s prerogative as the first Canadian to be a Beijing University student during the Cultural Revolution meant she got some of Chairman Mao’s geishas among her classmate friends? (Jan Wong, Red China Blues: My Long March from Mao to Now, 1997, Random House, Inc.)

But then when Jan Wong lamented about the French Quebec society’s “pure laine” attitude having to do with ethnic immigrant minority resentment, The Globe and Mail made a 180-degree turn and gagged her – as discussed in Part 1 of this blog article.

Seeing this kind of journalistic calculation representing Canada by Jan Wong, one gets the idea that no Canadian story involving someone of Chinese heritage or origin is newsworthy until it can be for Chinese consumption.

And so from my personal angle, an in-depth discussion I would like to have about politically motivated violence – particularly violence at institutions of higher learning – would have to begin with Chinese stories I witnessed as a child in China during the Cultural Revolution.

My ten years of elementary and secondary education coincided with the duration of the Cultural Revolution, 1966 – 1976. Our class’s experiences were quite unlike those of another age group in recent Chinese history: schooling was interrupted several times in the first few years due to Cultural Revolution activities or school-safety concerns; most of the school curricula were watered down and filled with politically correct contents; regular political indoctrination sessions must be attended several times a week to study teachings of Chairman Mao and policies of the Communist party, where everyone was required to express gratitude and loyal support as well as conduct self criticism confessing one’s own mistakes or shortcomings; in addition, regular periods of labor work in the factory and the farm field were mandatory and became more demanding during secondary schooling.

But already things were less tumultuous for us than for the older folks. Many of our older siblings or cousins became or had to become members of the Red Guards, who carried out organized anti-status quo activities, some violent, and our parents were likely targets of such activities, or at least endured a difficult time to avoid being targets and adjust to a physically and socially harder life demanded by the political correctness.

Right from the start, my schooling didn’t actually begin until early 1967.

My family – me, my parents, maternal grandparents and younger sister – had been living in a dorm-apartment allocated to my mother by the education bureau of the southern Haizhu District (海珠区) in the city of Guangzhou, where she was a middle school teacher. The elementary school entrance age was seven at the time, and at age six in 1965 I applied to a new school which I recall was named Haizhu District Experimental School, that was experimenting with admitting younger children, but I was quickly turned down after an interview.

I am not sure what this school is today, definitely not Haizhu District Experimental Elementary School (广州市海珠区实验小学) founded in 1988 – the year I came to Canada – but possibly Haizhu Zhentai Experimental Elementary School (海珠镇泰实验小学) founded in 1963, which is located near the right location at Nanhua East Road (南华东路) near Tongqing Road (同庆路).

When the Cultural Revolution began in the early summer of 1966, my mother was roughed up by her middle school’s student Red Guards, who came to our place ransacking and confiscating anything of hers that looked valuable, had her hair cut very short forcibly like her head had been shaved, and required her to attend daily regiment of critical self-reevaluation. In an age group with the combination of youthful restlessness, physically strength and enthusiasms for social experimentation, the middle-school student Red Guards were especially known for their nastiness and propensity for violence – with their teachers who unfortunately also had the role of behavioral counseling bearing the brunt of it during the early months of the revolution.

In the fall of 1966 my father, then a junior faculty member at Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen) University, arranged for the family to move to the university campus, where the anarchy and violence were not as bad as in the middle school environment and were more targeted at officials and senior professors due to the intellectual focus of higher education.

Me and Grandma were the exceptions at the time of moving – we had left for my first sojourn to the city of Shantou (Swatow), part of Grandma’s hometown she and Grandpa had not been back to since moving to Guangzhou in 1959 around the time of my birth, and didn’t return to Guangzhou until around the New Year of 1967 for my spring semester. (My Chinese blog-post series discussing personal experiences in the context of political events, "忆往昔,学历史智慧" (“Reminiscing the past, learning history’s wisdom"), has so far focused on the very earlier years to around age 5.)

Both Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen) University and its campus were of reputations of prestige in Guangzhou (historically known as Canton), capital of Guangdong province: the university was founded in the 1920s as the national university for the province by the then Canton-based national government of Dr. Sun Yat-sen (Sun Zhongshan), father of the Chinese Republican Revolution, and after Sun’s death was renamed in his honor; then in the early 1950s the new Communist government of Mao Zedong had Zhongshan University take over the private Lingnan University, a Christian school, and move to Lingnan’s sprawling, Western-style campus. (“Sun Yat-sen University”, Wikipedia.)

There was another interesting yet often overlooked historical context about this merger of universities, which was only a part of the new Chinese government’s nationwide comprehensive revamp of higher education: Lingnan University had been founded in the 1880s as the Christian College in China by the American Presbyterian Church, but was separated from the mother church and became governed by a New York-based board of regents in the year 1893 amid anti-foreign sentiments in China – the year Chairman Mao was born. (“Lingnan University: History and Development”, Lingnan University; “Guide to the Archives of the Trustees of Lingnan University”, Yale University Library; and, “Mao Zedong (1893-1976): Major Events in the Life of a Revolutionary Leader”. Expanding East Asian Studies, Columbia University.)

So unlike most of my new elementary classmates in 1967, I had not been born and raised on the Zhong Da (short for ZhongShan DaXue, i.e., Zhongshan University) campus of a wealth of history, and only one of my parents, i.e., my father, worked at ZD. But there was another family context that was not apparent at the time: my mother’s family had a long Christian history that had included Grandma’s paternal grandfather as one of the first-ever Chinese doctors of Western medicine in eastern Guangdong province – at the Swatow Mission Hospital founded in the 1860s by the English Presbyterian Mission. (My first blog article, "Greeting the New Millennium – nearly a decade late", January 2009; and, my blog post on the history of Christianity in China, “Bangkok to Kwangtung, and back to America (Part 1) – Opening China to Christianity”, February 2010.)

As well, outside of the ZD campus I had been born and delivered in a Guangzhou hospital founded by the American Presbyterian Mission on December 12, 1899 as the affiliated medical clinic of the first women’s medical school in China. (My Chinese blog post, "忆往昔,学历史智慧" (“Reminiscing the past, learning history’s wisdom"), February 2010.)

Being new on ZD campus – except for one prior short stay at my father’s faculty dorm room beginning on the day the middle school Red Guards ransacked my mother’s dorm-apartment – I naturally did not know as much about what went on as my classmates at the university‘s affiliated elementary school also in Haizhu District, which was appropriately renamed “July1 Elementary School” in honor of the Chinese Communist Party’s birthday.

Interestingly, 20 years after leaving the July 1 Elementary School in 1972, I became a Canadian citizen on July 1, Canada Day, 1992.

For example, in early 1967 I had little awareness that as Grandma and I came to the family’s new dwelling on ZD campus (the basement of a house and then the first floor by the time Grandma and I arrived) and the new semester began, Zhao Ziyang, then Guangdong province’s Communist party leader, was also taken to Zhongshan University – on January 21 – for a short period of detention. Under pressure from the university student Red Guards, on January 22 Zhao agreed to a transfer of provincial party and government powers to a province-wide “Alliance” of Red Guard organizations, including handover of the official seals. (David L. Shambaugh, The making of a premier: Zhao Ziyang's Provincial Career, 1984, Westview Press, Chinese version, 趙紫陽崛起與陷落, translated by Xu Zerong (徐澤榮); and, Wei Zhao and Shibin Chen, The biography of Zhao Ziyang, 1989, Educational and Cultural Press.)

It was a type of power transfer from the Communist party to the Red Guards where the Red Guards would not manage power but act as monitors. On the next day, January 23, an official announcement was issued for this power arrangement by the provincial party organ under Zhao Ziyang to all Communist party members in Guangdong province.

This Guangdong approach to power transfer received immediate positive response from Premier Zhou Enlai in Beijing, who was opposed to the full power takeover by Red Guards taking place in Shanghai. (“一月夺权”, by 叶曙明, December 4, 2005, 历史现场的黑白记忆 (ysm2001.bokee.com).)

At the time Liu Shaoqi, President of China and Deng Xiaoping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party had been branded “Capitalist Roaders” in 1966 and were in the process of being eliminated from the national leadership; there were tremendous pressures to do the same, from the revolutionary followers of Chairman Mao Zedong of the Communist Party, to the official powers at the provincial and regional levels.

Unfortunately for Zhao Ziyang in Guangdong, Chairman Mao wanted a third type of power transfer to the Red Guards, one that would soon take place in Heilongjiang province in the northeast bordering the Soviet Union – a full power takeover with a key role for the military (and a role for some politically correct officials). In the evening of January 21 when Zhao Ziyang was taken to Zhongshan University, a next-day editorial in People’s Daily, the Chinese Communist Party’s official newspaper, was being broadcast calling for full power takeover by the revolution, and on January 23, the day Zhao Ziyang officially announced the Guangdong power transfer to under Red Guard monitoring, the Communist Party central issued a decision to use the military to support full power takeover in the provinces and regions. (“文革中所谓的“上海一月革命”──毛泽东制造的一个“文革样板””, by 何蜀, 2001, Modern China Studies; and, “对“文化大革命”中“三结合”的述评”, 历史专题, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.)

Political differences with the local military and internal splits among the Guangdong Red Guards soon led to a March 1967 full military takeover – not Red Guard takeover – of Guangdong provincial powers by the Guangzhou Military Region, which was the military command center for several southern provinces and was loyal to their former boss, then Defense Minister Lin Biao, who had in 1966 become the sole Vice Chairman of the Communist Party and was effectively the henchman-leader of the Cultural Revolution under Chairman Mao. Zhao Ziyang lost his provincial leader job and was also branded a “Capitalist Roader”. (“赵紫阳”and “林彪”, Wikipedia; Ezra F. Vogel, One Step Ahead in China: Guangdong Under Reform, 1990, Harvard University Press; and, “广州的夺权模式被中央否定”, by 叶曙明, December 8, 2005, 历史现场的黑白记忆 (ysm2001.bokee.com).)

In this short-lived Guangdong political power experiment that began on January 21-23, 1967 at Sun Yat-sen University, was the same Zhao Ziyang who in the early 1980s became the Chinese Premier – several years after the 1976 deaths of Chairman Mao Zedong and Premier Zhou Enlai and the end of Cultural Revolution (Lin Biao had died in a 1971 plane crash in Mongolia trying to flee to the Soviet Union after a failed coup attempt against Mao). (“Zhao Ziyang”, Wikipedia; and, “Review: Mao's Last Revolution”, by Judith Shapiro, October 6, 2006, The New York Times.)

By the late 1980s Zhao was the reform-minded General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party – the official top leader as there was no longer the position of Chairman – and his ascent coincided with rapid growths of the Chinese democracy movement and related mass protests driven to a large extent by intellectuals and university students.

In May 1989 Zhao Ziyang attempted to show empathy for the university students of the democracy movement on Tiananmen Square, expressing the view that their intentions were good and the situation was not a major problem, even after the movement was branded “a planned conspiracy and a turmoil” by an April 26 editorial of People’s Daily. In mid-May Zhao had serious clashes in Politburo Standing Committee meetings with the majority of the party’s top collective leadership who took a hardline against the “turmoil”. (Suzanne Ogden, China’s Search for Democracy: The Student and the Mass Movement of 1989, 1992, M.E. Sharpe; and, “中国共产党大事记(1989年)”, Xinhua News (新华网).)

Mikhail Gorbachev, then the reform-minded leader of the Soviet Union, was visiting Beijing during May 15-18, and was told by Zhao that despite Zhao himself being the official party leader all important decisions had to be referred to the behind-the-scenes paramount leader Deng Xiaoping, who had survived the Cultural Revolution downfall and reemerged as the final arbiter of power in China. (Gordon White, The Chinese State in the Era of Economic Reform: The Road to Crisis, 1991, M.E. Sharpe.)

In the early morning of May 19, 1989, Zhao went to Tiananmen Square to try to persuade the students to end a hunger strike, having just attending a top-level meeting which decided, against his opposition, to use the military to suppress the mass protests. Here are some of what Zhao said to the students (“Zhao Ziyang’s Tiananmen Square Speech”, By Dan-Chyi Chua, February 4, 2009, asia! Magazine):

“Students, we came too late. Sorry, students. Whatever you say and criticise about us is deserved. My purpose here now is not to ask for your forgiveness. I want to say that now, your bodies are very weak. You have been on a hunger strike for six days, and it’s now the seventh day. You cannot go on like this. … I feel, our channel for dialogue is open, and some problems need to be resolved through a process. You cannot continue to – after seven days of hunger strike – insist on stopping only when you have a satisfactory answer.

You are still young and have much time ahead of you. You should live healthily to see the day that the Four Modernisations (as proposed by China’s first premier Zhou Enlai in 1975 in the areas of agriculture, technology, industry and defence) of China are realised. You are not like us, we are already old, and do not matter. It was not easy for the country and your parents to nurture you to reach university. Now in your late teens and early twenties, you are sacrificing your lives! Students, can you think rationally for a moment? … You mean well, and have the interests of our country at heart, but if this goes on, it will go out of control and will have various adverse effects.

…”

Later that day army troops began to arrive in Beijing, and the next day accompanied by the hardline President Yang Shangkun, Premier Li Peng declared martial law for Beijing.

On June 4 – exactly half a month (16 days) after Zhao Ziyang’s appearance on Tiananmen Square to show his empathy to the students – the military used force to clear the protests on the streets of Beijing and on Tiananmen Square.

Estimates for the number of deaths in the June 4 military crackdown range from fewer than 200 confirmed to many thousands. (“Tiananmen Square protests of 1989”, Wikipedia; and, “Tiananmen Square, 1989: The Declassified History”, The National Security Archive, The George Washington University.)

By then Zhao Ziyang was already under house arrest that would last the rest of his life, while Yang Shangkun – a longtime colleague of Deng Xiaoping – and his younger brother Yang Baibing, who had been put in charge of personnel arrangement and political indoctrination in the military, now played high-profile roles for the suppression and military disciplines. (Michel Oksenberg, Lawrence R. Sullivan, Marc Lambert and Qiao Li, Beijing Spring, 1989: Confrontation and Conflict: The Basic Documents, 1990, M.E. Sharpe; Richard Baum, Burying Mao: Chinese politics in the age of Deng Xiaoping, 1994, Princeton University Press; “A Retrospective on the Study of Chinese Civil-Military Relations Since 1979: What Have We Learned? Where Do We Go?”, by Thomas J. Bickford, in James C. Mulvenon and Andrew N.D. Yang, Ed., Seeking Truth From Facts: A Retrospective on Chinese Military Studies in the Post-Mao Era, 2001, RAND Corporation; “The Prisoner of Conscience: Zhao Ziyang, 1919-2005”, by Matthew Forney and Susan Jakes, January 16, 2005, Time Magazine; and, “The secret journal of Zhao Ziyang: Chinese whispers”, May 21, 2009, The Economist.)

It’s ironic that in the 22 years from the spring of 1967 in Guangzhou to the spring of 1989 in Beijing, the table had turned between Zhao Ziyang and university student protesters yet the end remained the same for both.

At a level below the provincial power struggles, in 1966-67 at Zhongshan University (as at other educational institutions) most officials and senior faculty members were targets of the Cultural Revolution and suffered a great deal, some were beaten severely, some died of related health problems, and some committed suicide.

Being newer on ZD campus I was not as familiar with the places, didn’t go as far and most likely did not see as much of the tough things as the other kids. But I attended school and what I saw or learned in that process I couldn’t avoid.

A report had it that senior history professors were hung at trees and lynched near the south entrance to the ZD campus (Ezra F. Vogel, One Step Ahead in China: Guangdong Under Reform, 1990, Harvard University Press). I am not sure what the facts were, but that a big tree on a small hill beside the main road inside the south entrance was dubbed the “neck-hanging tree” by the kids for the reason that a known faculty member had been hung there.

The father of “Ping”, one of the girls in our class, an associate professor of Physics more senior than most of the parents of our class, had been branded a “rightist” in the 1957 anti-rightist political campaign (“'Rightist' Wrongs”, June 26, 2007, by Jerome A. Cohen, The Wall Street Journal) and was now subjected to further political condemnation and cruel treatment. He leaped to his death from on top a campus building.

Then there was the time when for several days something was floating in a pond on my way to and near the elementary school, that looked like a dead pig and had horrendously stenchful smell. It turned out to be, upon closer inspection by the more curious, the swollen belly of a man dead in the water for days before emerging.

I sort of remember that it was a lecturer in the History department who couldn’t stand the cruel treatment suffered in the political sessions held to denounce the wrong views he had expressed and committed suicide. But recently the older brother of my old classmate buddy “Ling” tells me that it was a certain Communist party official in the department of Chinese Literature.

The recent info about this dead man’s identity comes as somewhat shocking to me because my father, a lecturer in the Philosophy department during the Cultural Revolution, and my mother were both graduates of the Chinese Literature department; also, many years later around the New Millennium my parents moved into one of the apartment buildings built later overlooking that pond, where my mother still lives but my father died in 2005. (My blog article on Canadian politics has mentioned some circumstances at the time of my father’s passing in August 2005, "The myth of political vendetta in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s Airbus Affair investigation, the politics of Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien, and some social undercurrents in Canada", February 2009 –.)

The types of violence that occurred in the early years of the Cultural Revolution targeting persons in positions of power or intellectual seniority, in some sense were not unlike the FLQ kidnappings of James Cross and Pierre Laporte in Montreal in 1970, which had inspirations from international political radicalism.

A major difference between the FLQ violence in Canada and the violence during the Chinese Cultural Revolution was that part of the Chinese leadership sanctioned the Red Guards’ violent anti-status quo actions.

Another type of violence raging during an early period of the Cultural Revolution was militant fighting, or violent battles, between different Red Guard organizations. In the spring of 1967 the various Red Guard organizations in Guangdong province quickly fell into two camps: the more radical “Red Flag” which had played a key role in the January power transfer from Zhao Ziyang, and the more pro-government “East Wind” which were more sympathetic to the subsequent military takeover and its law-and-order stability.

In Guangzhou, most of the city and most of the nearby countryside were controlled by the East Winders, in particular most of the Red Guard organizations in the factories and farm villages were part of the East Wind alliance, while the universities and some of the middle schools were dominated by the Red Flaggers, with Zhongshan University’s organization, the Red Flag Commune, as their center (and possibly the origin of their nick name).

In fact, on January 21-23, 1967 it was under detention by the Zhongshan University Red Flag Commune and their affiliated vanguard group, “August 31”, that Zhao Ziyang acceded to transfer of provincial power to under Red Guard monitoring, and the ZD Red Flag Commune became one of the official monitors of provincial power. Then on January 24 a top “August 31” leader, Mathematics student Huang Yijian (黄意坚), received a phone call from Premier Zhou Enlai and encouragements from Zhou for the Red Guards to be united and to keep good relations with the military. (“一月夺权”, by 叶曙明, December 4, 2005, 历史现场的黑白记忆 (ysm2001.bokee.com).)

But events did not follow Zhou Enlai’s wishes and the military took over full power in March in Guangdong. On April 14, accompanied by General Huang Yongsheng, Commander of the Guangzhou Military Region, Premier Zhou flew to Guangzhou from Beijing to meet with the leaders of the severely split Red Guards organizations, many members of which were also under military detention, to personally see that their activities would not turn violent and that the Spring 1967 Canton Fair due to open the next day on April 15 could go forward smoothly. (Lawrence C. Reardon, The reluctant Dragon: Crisis Cycles in Chinese Foreign Economic Policy, 2002, University of Washington Press; “周恩来亲赴广州”, by 叶曙明, January 2, 2006, 历史现场的黑白记忆 (ysm2001.bokee.com); and, “1967年广交会亲历者揭秘:周恩来说服造反派”, October 30, 2006, Yangcheng Evening News (羊城晚报, courtesy of China.com).)

The Canton Fair was very important for the Chinese economy and foreign relations as it was Chinese’s only export trade fair – held biannually in Guangzhou – during the first three decades of the Communist era, 1950s – 1970s. (My blog articles, Greeting the New Millennium – nearly a decade late”, January 2009, and, ““Nairobi to Shenzhen”, and on to Guangzhou”, November and December 2009.)

In the evening of April 14, 1967, Zhou Enlai attended and spoke at a rally of Red Guards totaling over 10,000 strong, held simultaneously at the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall located in the city center and at the indoor City Sports Center, calling on the Red Guards to be united and help ensure a successful Spring Canton Fair. After midnight Zhou toured the about-to-open Canton Fair exhibition halls, and succeeded in persuading the Red Guards to let open some exhibits sealed off because of their accused political incorrectness – that had especially been the case with many of the traditional Chinese artisan crafts.

Zhou Enlai ended up spending 5 days in Guangzhou at Chairman Mao’s request, meeting Red Guard representatives everyday and encouraging the Red Guards to be more open in their revolution and learn from past mistakes of not being so – the military and aligned East Wind Red Guards had accused the January 21-23 provincial power transfer as having been conducted in relative secrecy – but not to be violent, informing them the March military takeover had been Chairman Mao’s decision.

Sadly, it had been in early February 1967 while working devotedly on the power transfer/takeover issues when Zhou Enlai was for the first time diagnosed with a heart problem, and it was then during these five grueling April days in Guangzhou in which he had no sleep for a period of 84 hours that Zhou’s heart problem worsened, to the point that from then on he would require daily oxygen aid and oral medications four times a day. Later in 1970 Zhou Enlai said to the famed American journalist Edgar Snow, “Cultural Revolution has defeated me when it comes to my health”; but then shortly after Richard Nixon’s historic visit, in May 1972 Zhou was also diagnosed with bladder cancer, which would in the end destroy him. (“周恩来晚年五次大手术:我还有61斤 请主席放心”, June 4, 2009, China News (中国新闻网); or, “周恩来晚年五次大手术 自称身体被文化大革命打败”, June 5, 2009, CCTV.com.)

And unfortunately, past the Spring Canton Fair the conflicts between the Red Flaggers and the East Winders and between the Red Flaggers and the military continued to worsen. A “May 3” hunger strike was staged in front of the Guangzhou Uprising Martyrs Cemetery Park by about 2,000 Red Flaggers demanding the release of one of their leaders in military detention, and it ended only after Premier Zhou Enlai in Beijing ordered the release on May 6. (刘国凯, 广州红旗派的兴亡 (上), 2006, 博大出版社 (courtesy of 地方文革史交流网).)

On July 21 and July 23 – exactly half a year (6 months) after the January 21-23 Communist party-to-Red Guards power transfer by then provincial party leader Zhao Ziyang and with Guangdong under military rule since March – the first major deadly Red Guard militant battles took place in Guangzhou between the Red Flaggers and the East Winders, with the July 23 incident at none other than the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall and the nearby outdoor City Sports Stadium.

The Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall, built 1929-31, was designed by the Cornell University educated Chinese architect Lu Yanzhi, who had been born in the year 1894 when Sun Yat-sen began his revolutionary work. Lu had designed Sun Yat-sen’s Tomb and Mausoleum built 1926-29 in Nanjing, and in Guangzhou also designed the nearby Sun Yat-sen Monument, before his premature death at a tender age of 35 in 1929 – the year the Tomb and Mausoleum were completed and construction began for the Monument and the Memorial Hall. (“National Park of China-Dr.Sun Yat-sen's Mausoleum”, Zhongshan Mountain National Park; “中山纪念堂”, June 13, 2005, Guangzhou Municipal Government; “Dr. Sun Yat-sen's Memorial Hall”, March 20, 2006, Life of Guangzhou; and, “孙中山纪念碑”, Guangzhou Yuexiu Park.)

Located on the site of the former Presidential Palace of which Dr. Sun Yat-sen had been the occupant before it was destroyed in civil warfare, the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall is a grand architectural marvel combining Byzantine architecture and Chinese imperial designs with the spirits of Sun Yat-sen’s egalitarianism and people orientation. It is the most important symbolic structure in Guangzhou and one that gets compared to the Forbidden City and the Great Hall of the People at Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. (“中山纪念堂 天下为公,终将万古长存”, November 22, 2002, Southern Metropolis Daily (南方都市报, courtesy of Guangzhou Library website, July 2, 2009).)

Dr. Sun Yat-sen is dear to the hearts of the people of Guangzhou. He was born in a village only 60 miles south and spoke Cantonese, and the southern national government he founded in Guangzhou in 1917 (after the government in Beijing betrayed the 1911 Republican Revolution and reverted to monarchy for short periods of time and the nation became fractured) has been the only national government of China ever located in this city. Several short years after his 1925 death at the age of 58 due to liver cancer, the southern government inheriting his heritage triumphed in military campaigns over the Beijing-based northern government, and the capital was moved back to Nanjing – the Yangtze River city with a history as national capital dating back to Ming dynasty’s founding in the 14th century – where the Republic of China had been proclaimed by Dr. Sun and where he now would be entombed, although at the time the Communists looked upon Wuhan – also on the Yangtze River – where the 1911 Revolution had begun, as the capital. (“Sun Yat-sen”, Wikipedia; “孙中山”, Wikipedia; “國父孫中山先生”, Office of the President, Republic of China (Taiwan); “History of the Republic of China”, Wikipedia; and, my blog post, “Bangkok to Kwangtung, and back to America (Part 1) – Opening China to Christianity”, February 2010.)

Prior to the Cultural Revolution, the only violent conflict that had befallen the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall in Guangzhou was during the Japanese invasion of China that subsequently became part of the Second World War, when on June 7 and 8, 1938 Japanese aerial bombing inflicted damages to some external structures but not to the Hall’s main structure. Eventually it was also in this Hall on September 16, 1945 that the Japanese army in Guangdong formally surrendered to the allied forces. (“历史事件”, Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s Memorial Hall; and, “从革命烽烟中走来的羊城”, November 15, 2010, Beijing Evening News (北京晚报).)

(During one of his frequent visits to Guangzhou in the 1950s when he was also President of China) Chairman Mao Zedong toured the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall on January 24, 1958, met with representatives of the local people and praised the Hall, “This is a great building designed and constructed by the Chinese ourselves, who says the Chinese are not good?”. (“历史事件”, Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s Memorial Hall; “百年南武知名校友录”, by 林辉煌, 广州市南武中学; “中山纪念堂”, June 13, 2005, Guangzhou Municipal Government; “中山纪念堂 葱茏静地缅先驱”, November 10, 2010, Yangcheng Evening News (羊城晚报).)

Nonetheless, a little over three months after Premier Zhou Enlai’s speeches at a rally of over 10,000 Red Guard representatives in Guangzhou with around 5,000 of them at Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall (its seating capacity near the original design), a Red Guard militant battle took place around the Hall on July 23, 1967, pitching East Winders against Red Flaggers involving well over 10,000, possibly many more, of them.

It all began on July 19 when the East Winders and the Red Flaggers had a dispute at the Guangzhou Overseas Chinese Sugar Refinery over posting of political banners, when a child was hurt. The next evening, over 1,000 Red Guards carrying spears, hoes, carrying-poles, etc., fought at the sugar refinery, and the refinery’s director became the first casualty of militant fighting in Guangzhou: he was being condemned in a workers’ rally and Red Guards from outside of the refinery came in with wooden bats and clobbered him over the head. What happened the day after was known as the “July 21 Incident”, when the two sides waged an all out battle around the sugar refinery, ending with the Red Flaggers’ announcement that 7 more people, all their comrades, were killed including some in a truck attacked and overturned down a hill. (“广州武斗第一次出现死人”, by 叶曙明, February 23, 2006, 历史现场的黑白记忆 (ysm2001.bokee.com); and, “广州地区文革期间主要武装冲突事件”, by 区国樑, August 2010, 地方文革史交流网.)

It so happened that on July 22, the day after the “July 21 Incident”, a call was made in Beijing by Jiang Qing, Chairman Mao’s wife and one of the leaders of the Cultural Revolution, for the Red Guards not to put down their weapons when it came to defending themselves. Jiang Qing stated that the Red Guard slogan, “文攻武卫”(attack with intellectualism and defend with militancy) was politically correct, and her words were reported by the press on the next day, i.e., the day the militant battle took place at Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall in Guangzhou. (“1967年7月22日 “文攻武卫”口号出笼”, News of the Communist Party of China (中国共产党新闻).)

Two major mass events had been scheduled for July 23. One was a rally by the “Mao Zedong-ist Red Guards”, the most hardline East Wind organization made up mostly of youths from the families of politically correct officials and military officers, to celebrate the organization’s official establishment in Guangzhou, and the other was the memorial service by the Red Flaggers for their seven comrades killed at the sugar refinery. The Maoists’ rally had been planned at a meeting hall within the Guangzhou Military Region headquarters’ compound and the Red Flaggers’ at a sports field, when the city’s military control commission reassigned the Maoists to the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall and the Red Flaggers to the nearby outdoor Yuexiu Sports Stadium – both adjacent to the Yuexiu Park where the Sun Yat-sen Monument was located. (“浴血中山纪念堂”, by 叶曙明, March 6, 2006, 历史现场的黑白记忆 (ysm2001.bokee.com))

It may have been coincidental but the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall was in fact located at East Wind Road Center, or East Wind Middle Road – its present-day address is 259 East Wind Middle Road. However the title “Mao Zedong-ist” or “Mao Zedong-ism” (毛泽东主义) was never sanctioned by Mao himself. For instance, in his first review of Tiananmen Square Red Guard rally on August 18, 1966, Mao had accepted to wear a “Red Guard” armband presented by a young women but refused a “Mao Zedong-ist Red Guard” one from a young man. (“文革为什么分两大派?——广州两派红卫兵历史性对谈”, May 11, 2009, 地方文革史交流网; and, “毛泽东八次接见红卫兵 天安门内外两重天”, June 11, 2010, 天下韶山网.)

Both rallies were supposed to be peaceful. But with several thousand Maoist youths attending the Memorial Hall and many thousands of Red Flaggers going to the Stadium, the two parade processions began to exchange heated arguments, including when some Red Flaggers served their memorial wreaths to the Maoists, and then the fighting began. Though the Maoists were much smaller in numbers, they had come dressed in paramilitary gears carrying spears and daggers and had the walled and gated Memorial Hall as their base, but the Red Flaggers quickly trucked hand-combat weapons to the area.

Local military commanders sent several hundred soldiers to try to mediate, but they were attacked by the Red Flaggers and had to be evacuated by larger contingents of soldiers. General Huang Ronghai, Commander of the Guangdong Military District who also headed Guangzhou city’s military control commission, then came to the scene and he, too, could not contained the situation. Eventually several thousand troops arrived and formed walls of human chains to separate the warring sides. (“一九六七年大动乱(下)”, June 11, 2008, 广州文艺.)

Like with the June 4 events on Tiananmen Square 22 years later, casualty estimates varied for this “July 23 Incident”.

Right afterwards, the propaganda publications by the Red Flaggers and the East Winders, each headed by a banner featuring Chairman Mao’s supreme directive, “要用文斗, 不用武斗”(fight intellectually, not militantly), blamed members of the other side as the violent aggressors who caused the bloody mass debacle, calling them murderers in a premeditated massacre.

The Maoists announced that 26 of them were killed or missing while the Red Flaggers put their death toll at 33 – a total of 59 – and of course hundreds more wounded on each side. (““文革”中广州的第一场特大型武斗”, December 21, 2008, 羊城网.) In one publication the Maoist Red Guards gave graphic descriptions of what happened even after some of their wounded had been hospitalized:

“We learned afterwards that in the afternoon of the 23rd 6 Maoists and a teacher had been sent to City No. 1 Hospital for emergency rescue, and then on the 26th at around 3 p.m. several dozen Red Flaggers went to the hospital rooms, beat them to death and took the bodies away, leaving only blood splattered around in the room, that denounced to others the atrocity.”

However a local military estimate put the number of dead at only 4, wounded at over 400, and the military’s own wounded at over 140. (“从环江到珠江”, January 5, 2010, 河池日报)

Then a book by Harvard University professor Ezra Vogel, One Step Ahead in China: Guangdong Under Reform, published in 1990, i.e., not long after the 1989 mass protests and military crackdown on Tiananmen Square, reported on this July 23, 1967 militant fighting at Guangzhou’s Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall by saying, “when some from the stadium attacked those in the hall, many were injured” – without mentioning the deaths.

The “July 21 & July 23 Incidents” plunged Guangzhou into a period of fear, semi-lawlessness and violence. In addition to fears for the various Red Guard groups’ attacks and counterattacks, fears for violent crimes also shot up. I remember that virtually every building or house in Guangzhou, including our dwelling, became fortified, with all doors and windows reinforced by metal or heavy-wooden bars and some simply sealed off with bricks.

Zhongshan University, the most prominent entity in Guangzhou named in honor of Dr. Sun Yat-sen, would have its share of militant fighting, with a year-long escalation of tension between the Red Flaggers and the East Winders culminating in what became known as the “June 3 Incident” of 1968, before the military in Guangdong fully intervened and disarmed all the Red Guards.

One day in 1967 – I recall it as in the summertime – I was walking in front of the north-facing entrance of the Small Auditorium – formerly Lingnan University’s YMCA building also known as Swasey Hall where Dr. Sun Yat-sen had given a speech in 1923 – in between it and a group of Red Guards on a break from militant drilling at the edge of the green lawn where farther north stood Dr. Sun Yat-Sen’s bronze statue – a statue that for a couple of years in the 1950s had stood in front of the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall until a new statue was made for the Hall (“Swasey Hall” and “中山先生铜像”, Sun Yat-sen University; and, Dong Wang, Managing God's higher learning: U.S.-China cultural encounter and Canton Christian College (Lingnan University), 1888-1952, 2007, Lexington Books). One of the Red Guards chatting with another saw me and, in a mock but serious posture, turned toward me and imitated a ‘dagger throw’ at me – being only 8 years old I was quite scared but I was right in front of a target practice board!

These Red Guards may have been East Winders, and the Small Auditorium one of the few buildings on ZD campus in their control before months later the Red Flaggers stormed it to take it over – an event I watched that wasn’t very violent if I remember correctly (or the takeover had happened before the simulated dagger throw by a Red Flagger).

I recall that the Small Auditorium’s basement had been a weapons depot of the People’s Arms office of the University, which supervised the local People’s Militia but neither was functioning during Red Guards’ days, and so the Red Flaggers took over dozens of rifles which the East Winders had not armed themselves with but safeguarded on behalf of the old administration.

My father at the time belonged to the East Winders – most of the junior faculty members had to be on one or the other Red Guard side in order not to be targeted as being un-revolutionary, and being not anti-government my father wrote some propaganda pamphlets for the East Winders.

Not every junior faculty member went with it, though. My old classmate buddy “Ling”’s father, who was my father’s fellow lecturer at the Philosophy department but a little more senior, did not believe in the Cultural Revolution’s political correctness and refused to take part in it. He was denounced by his own students – an experience that appeared like my mother’s at her middle school from what “Ling” has told me:

“My dad did not belong to either and was a target by his own students. I recalled one day he came home with his head half shaven. I did not dare to ask why but could see how angry, heartbroken and confused he was.”

“Ling”’s father, Prof. Yuan Weishi, is today a very well-known intellectual in China, a prolific scholar in Chinese history and politics with influential independent views and public outspokenness. (“Leading Publication Shut Down In China: Party’s Move Is Part Of Wider Crackdown”, By Philip P. Pan, January 25, 2006, The Washington Post; and, “袁伟时教授访谈录:回望百年共和路”, by 笑蜀, November 17, 2006, Xinhua News (新华网).)

In the Red Guard days the university had about 5,000 students, most of them members of one or the other side and majority of them Red Flaggers. But not all of them participated in the militant activities and only a small number of junior faculty members did. At the height of the turbulent militant period from around the “July 23 Incident” at the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall to the early fall of 1968 when the military closed down the militant Red Guards, all the major campus buildings were controlled by the militant Red Guards armed with spears and guns, and most by the Red Flaggers who in addition to hundreds of rifles and grenades also had a collection of small cannons, anti-aircraft guns, etc.

Many of the weapons, especially the heavy types, were from the military. In early 1967 some of the Red Guards, such as the ZD Red Flag Commune and “August 31”, went to preach revolution in the military compounds and had some political conflicts in that respect with the military leading up to the March military takeover in Guangdong. But some noncombat military personnel became politically organized also and a number of senior officers became targets. Then after Chairman Mao’s wife Jiang Qing called on the Red Guards to use militancy and weapons for defense (in July around the time of Guangzhou’s “July 21 & July 23 Incidents”), some military units allowed Red Guards from outside to seize some of their weapons. (Maurice J. Meisner, Mao’s China and After: A History of the People’s Republic, 1999, Simon and Schuster; ““二•八事件”激怒了军区”, by 叶曙明, December 9, 2005, 历史现场的黑白记忆 (ysm2001.bokee.com); “广州六七反军和系列抢枪事件”, by 余习广, September 3, 2007, 余习广的BLOG; and, Andrew Langley, The Cultural Revolution: Years of Chaos in China, 2008, Compass Point Books.)

On the ZD campus the Red Guards regularly practiced close combat skills, and as they gained control of nearly the entire campus the Red Flaggers began to conduct harder military training such as target shooting and cannon firing.

On August 1, 1967, which happened to be the annual People’s Liberation Army Day, the ZD Red Flaggers successfully tested a chemical bomb on campus – quite a boisterous scene! But a death and an injury occurred from accidents in the experimental making of the chemical bombs. As well, the chairman of the Chemistry department, a professor who had earned his Ph.D. in Germany in the 1930s and taken part in Nazi Germany’s weapons program, had a role in developing the chemical bombs and later suffered political repercussions. (“文攻武卫,武斗升级”, by 叶曙明, April 4, 2006, 历史现场的黑白记忆 (ysm2001.bokee.com); and, ““文革”一页:中山大学被迫害的教授们”, November 12, 2009, 羊城网.)

August 11, 1967 saw one of the most deadly gunfire ambushes in Guangzhou. On that day, middle-school Red Flag leader Wang Xizhe and his followers first went to seize weapons at the air force compound across from his school, but found that the arms had been evacuated. Their car convoy then went on their way to the city’s Baiyun Airport to join a dispute over the kidnapping of Cultural Revolution representatives just flown in from the Communist Party central in Beijing. As they drove past the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall they encountered a hail of rifle fire and hurriedly changed their destination to the Sun Yat-sen Medical University (then a separate institution from but since part of Sun Yat-sen University) for emergency care – 5 of Wang’s comrades were killed and he was among the over a dozen wounded. (“走向黑暗——王希哲自传(上)”, by 王希哲, November 13, 2009, 地方文革史交流网.)

Today, Wang Xizhe (王希哲) is very well known as a Chinese democracy activist in exile after spending on and off many years  in jail in China for his political activities, and as a former collaborator of the jailed 2010 Nobel Peace Laureate Liu Xiaobo – in 1996 the two jointly issued the “October Tenth Declaration” calling for a dialogue between the governments of Mainland China and Taiwan among other political changes. (“The Nobel Peace Prize 2010: Liu Xiaobo – Photo Gallery”, Nobel Foundation; “A survey of China: Look, no dissidents; All critics have been silenced”, March 6, 1997, The Economist; and, “Liu Xiaobo biography”, by Jean-Philippe Béja, October 28, 2010, Reporters without Borders.)

The first Zhongshan University casualty from the Red Guards’ actual militant conflicts may have come from a sniper shot originating from outside the campus – as I can recall.

In 1967 and the first half of 1968 the Red Flag students gradually took over nearly all of the large (non-residential) campus buildings. Across the street from the campus south side were a number of factories controlled by the East Wind workers armed just like the ZD Red Flaggers. Several large buildings inside the ZD campus south wall were made into Red Flag fortresses, from where they would exchange nightly gunfire with the factory East Winders across the street. The two biggest ZD fortresses were the elegant Female Students Residence from the Lingnan University days, and the newer Biology Building – with the two biggest factories across the street being the Guangzhou Electric Motors Factory and the Guangdong Tractor Factory. (“王永健:中山大学广寒宫” (‘Guanghan Palace’ – Female Students Residence), 新华网.)

Normally gunfire did not occur during the daylight hours so people could go about their basic necessities such as work, grocery shopping, or schooling for us the kids (but of course no classes for the university students). But then one day at the elementary school a story circulated that a Red Guard standing watch on the rooftop of the Biology Building during the day, unarmed, was shot dead by sniper fire – origin of the gunshot assumed to be one of the two big factories across the street.

By some time in 1967-68 only one major ZD campus building remained in the East Winders’ control, the Central Library. It was the university East Winders’ headquarters, where hundreds of them were barricaded inside. Their food supplies were brought in by East Wind workers and peasants from outside the campus, during regular intervals of ceasefire and going through checkpoint inspections by the university Red Flaggers. Threats from the East Wind workers and peasants to invade the campus to rescue their comrades served as a deterrent against any serious attack by the ZD Red Flaggers on the ZD East Winder headquarters.

With the East Wind headquarters holed up and holding up in the Central Library till the time when the military came to restore order, most of the books there were saved. The stereotype story about burning and destruction of books I read in Western publications, such as in the following quote, is inaccurate as far as I can remember (although more serious damages including book burning did occur at a small number of departmental libraries):

“At Zhongshan University in Canton, the Red Guards first burned all the books from the collection of Western classics; then they burned all texts not obviously Communist or Maoist; and then they burned the library building itself (Thurston 1987).”

The book quoted above, Libricide: The Regime-sponsored Destruction of Books and Libraries in the Twentieth Century, published in 2003, was written by the University of Hawaii Library & Information Science professor Rebecca Knuth, an expert on book burning. (“75th Anniversary of the Nazi Book Burnings: Interview with Rebecca Knuth”, AbeBooks.)

I wish Rebecca had a better source of information for this story on the Cultural Revolution; during 1997-99 I taught Computer Science in the same department as Rebecca and we even went together visiting a U.S. military disaster assistance information center in the Camp Smith compound of the United States Pacific Command. (the trip with Rebecca and two other female professors has been mentioned in my Facebook comment on a Council on Foreign Relations article by Commander Michael L. Baker of the U.S. Navy, http://www.facebook.com/councilonforeignrelations/posts/128962623818314.)

Nevertheless there was burning of a ZD campus building in a related storyline – after a group of East Winders broke free from the Central Library and took over the old Physics Building in the summer of 1968.

On June 3, 1968, a deadly battle happened when the Red Flaggers waged an attack to retake the Physics Building, including using guns and explosives, and setting the building on fire in the end. Some of the kids watched it. (刘国凯, 广州红旗派的兴亡 (下), 2006, 博大出版社 (courtesy of 地方文革史交流网); and, “一个小学生眼中的中大“六·三”武斗”, by Shihui Wang, November 11, 2007, 初级阶段 (shihuiwang.spaces.live.com).)

I don’t remember witnessing this battle or hearing all the commotions, likely because I was out of ZD campus staying with some of my mother’s friends or relatives in Guangzhou. Whenever rumors circulated of imminent militant fighting on ZD campus, or imminent invasion by East Wind workers, my mother would take my sister and I, and sometimes our grandparents, to one of these places.

I remember one time, probably in the winter of 1967-68, staying with my grandparents at their friends’ house in a city alleyway neighborhood, where the alley passage to the main street was barricaded at both ends and patrolled 24 hours by local watchmen armed with spears and iron bars.

Another time, probably in the spring of 1968, my mother, sister and I stayed at the dorm-apartment of two of her friends, a career-training school teacher couple who had two daughters around the age of us the siblings, and with the same family name, too.

This last time in June 1968, my sister probably joined my father who had been for months living in a village – the Old Phoenix Village (旧凤凰村) – behind the factories across from ZD campus south side – a price to pay for being sort of an East Winder in a Red Flag-dominated university when the going got tough. (My first blog article, "Greeting the New Millennium – nearly a decade late", has some interesting facts about the area in upstate New York my sister and her family live today, that to me are relevant.)

I probably stayed in the dorm room of Uncle Lin Weisan, my mother’s first cousin and a medical student at Sun Yat-sen Medical University, and soon afterwards left with him for my second sojourn to the Shantou region, this time to his home village in Jieyang (揭阳) County where I also got to visit Grandpa’s ancestral village. Uncle Weisan, son of Grandpa’s youngest sister and not directly related to Grandma even though also a “Lin”, is today a neurologist-doctor in another city in Guangdong, known for its petroleum production and the lychee fruits in its region. He and the others of my mother’s younger relatives and my parent’s younger friends helped us a lot – not the least getting big bamboos from the bamboo woods next to the Female Students Residence to barricade all the floor-to-ceiling foyer windows in our first-floor dwelling in a Western-style house.

Despite the calamity of this violent “June 3 Incident” and the many injured, there were only two deaths, one Red Flagger in the attack, and a top East Wind leader, Ruan Xiangyang (阮向阳). When the fire was burning up the Physics Building Ruan escaped from the top floor by climbing out a window down the wall, and running to hide in a home nearby, but he was then caught by a group of pursuers. Unluckily for Ruan, the pursuers were mostly middle school Red Flaggers from outside the university who had come to re-enforce their comrades, and they practically beat him to death. (“一个小学生眼中的中大“六·三”武斗”, by Shihui Wang, November 11, 2007, 初级阶段 (shihuiwang.spaces.live.com); and, “走向黑暗——王希哲自传(上)”, by 王希哲, November 13, 2009, 地方文革史交流网.)

Both the ZD “August 31” leader, Mathematics student Huang Yijian, and the middle school Red Flag leader Wang Xizhe, had roles directing this June 3 attack on scene.

But neither Huang Yijian or Wang Xizhe were the top leader of the Red Flaggers. The No.1 Red Flag leader in Zhongshan University was Biology student Wu Chuanbin (武传斌), who was a member of the Guangdong Provincial Revolutionary Committee formed in February 1968 to integrate the politically correct officials and Red Guard leaders into the military rule, and composed of 9 military members, 10 officials, 6 workers, 4 peasants, and 4 students – for a total of 33. (“文革“七二五讲话”:不仅仅是广西造反组织的终结”, by 闻于樵, April 12, 2002, 文革博物馆通讯(一二六), 华夏文摘增刊; and, “广东省革命委员会名单”, by 叶曙明, November 22, 2006, 历史现场的黑白记忆 (ysm2001.bokee.com).)

In any case, about two months after the “June 3 Incident” in 1968 the military and affiliated workers’ law-and-order militia entered the ZD campus and disarmed the Red Flaggers without meeting resistance, and the period of Cultural Revolution militant violence was over for Zhongshan University.

This happened after a July 25 meeting in Beijing with Red Guard representatives in which both Premier Zhou Enlai and General Huang Yongsheng, by then Chief of the General Staff of the Chinese military but still heading the Guangdong Provincial Revolutionary Committee, called Wu Chuanbin a trouble maker, who then quickly fell from grace by early August. (“廣西「反共救國團」冤案始末 (3)——文革機密檔案揭密之一”, by 小平頭(丹麥), November 18, 2006, and, “廣西「反共救國團」冤案始末 (4)——文革機密檔案揭密之一”, by 小平頭(丹麥), November 19, 2006, Epoch Times.)

Wu Chuanbin lives in Toronto, Canada today, so I guess The Globe and Mail journalist Jan Wong, the self-style “starry-eyed Maoist”, isn’t the only Canadian in her adulation of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. (“Alumni 中山大學多倫多校友名錄”, February 8, 2005, Sun Yat-sen University Toronto Alumni Association.)

I remember for a couple of weeks in August 1968 there were many hundreds of soldiers and thousands of workers’ militia on campus, some of them going from house to house searching for weapons. At least a dozen of the workers searched our dwelling, with several dozen more standing about in the yard and on the roads next to the house. I had a large slingshot made for me by one of my relative uncles, and a worker made a point of telling me that it was a “weapon” to be confiscated – much to my disappointment.

For reasons I don’t know, after the “June 3 Incident” the dead East Wind leader Ruan Xiangyang’s body was preserved in the Biology Building, and so after the military had restored order the East Winders held a mass memorial service with his body on display. My old classmate buddy “Ling” claims he and other kids sneaked into the building and watched the makeup process for Ruan’s body the day before the memorial service.

Ruan Xiangyang's sad end reminds me of my mother having been roughed up by her middle school Red Guards in 1966. His name, 阮向阳, also sounds like a bad omen to me as my Grandma Lin Zhenhua (林珍华), part of whose Christian family history I have discussed in my Chinese blog post, "忆往昔,学历史智慧" (“Reminiscing the past, learning history’s wisdom"), had a second name, Lin Ruanju (林阮菊). Soon at the July 1 Elementary School in 1970 we would have a new Mathematics (Arithmetic) teacher, a charming young women by the name of Ruan Jiabi (阮嘉碧 or 阮佳碧), whose name now many years later sounds exactly like ‘soft Canadian currency’.

Grandma passed away in 1980 at the age of 82 (I believe she was born in 1898, the same year as Zhou Enlai), and I left China in 1982. But I find that my old teacher Miss Ruan might still be teaching elementary arithmetic in the same Haizhu District of Guangzhou, and with a prestigious ‘experimental school’ – Beijing University’s affiliated middle school’s Guangzhou Experimental School! (“四年级数学教师:阮嘉碧”,  北大附中广州实验学校; and, “数学组教研工作总结”, April 10, 2007, CN-Teacher (中国教师站).)

My mother has retired from her Guangzhou No. 33 Middle School years ago. After leaving the July 1 Elementary School in 1972 I entered and four years later graduated from the Guangzhou No. 6 Middle School. This school had been Zhongshan University’s affiliated middle school for a couple of years prior to the Cultural Revolution, and before that had been founded in 1937 as the affiliated middle school of the Huangpu (Whampoa) Military Academy established in the same year 1924 as Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen) University by an intellectual leader and a guiding light for military officers – Dr. Sun Yat-sen! (“Sun Yat-sen University”, “Whampoa Military Academy” and “广州市第六中学”, Wikipedia.)

(Continuing to Part 3)

Friday, October 8, 2010

Team Canada female athletes disqualified from Commonwealth silver medal, jailed Chinese democracy activist awarded with Nobel peace prize, and others in between (Part 1) — when democracy can be trumped by issue-based politics

October 8, 2010 is an eventful day in my world of stories.

News comes that the Canadian women competing in the 4x100 freestyle relay swim event in the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, India, have just won but then been disqualified from the silver medal, because one of the swimmers – not immediately clear if it was Montreal’s Victoria Poon, Geneviève Saumur, Calgary’s Erica Morningstar or Stratford’s Julia Wilkinson – leaped into the pool early thus committing an “illegal takeover”. (“Swimming DQ costs Canada a medal”, by Jesse Campigotto, October 8, 2010, CBC Sports.)

On the cheerful side of news, the Chinese intellectual and democracy activist Liu Xiaobo, who in a sense is a “prisoner of conscience” at the early stage of an 11+2-year jail sentence in China (an 11-year prison term plus 2 additional years without normal citizen’s political rights), is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by the Norwegian Nobel Committee based in Oslo, a city Liu had visited in 1988 as a scholar before the 1989 Chinese democracy movement thrust him into the spotlight – during its final days on Tiananmen Square in late May and early June of that year. (“International PEN calls Liu Xiaobo’s sentence a grievous betrayal of inalienable human rights”, December 25, 2009, International PEN; “Nobel Peace Prize Given to Jailed Chinese Dissident”, by Andrew Jacobs and Jonathan Ansfield, October 8, 2010, The New York Times; “Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo wins Nobel Peace Prize”, October 8, 2010, USA Today; and, “Liu: A champion for political change with a heart of gold”, by Mark MacKinnon, October 8, 2010, The Globe and Mail.)

To confess my relative lack of patriotism as a Canadian without others’ sporting fervor, and my relative lack of political correctness as someone who had grown up and received university education in China but did not become a more righteous human-rights campaigner, I admit that I feel more interested in, and intrigued by, another news story the meaning and morale of which is not so crystal clear: U.S. President Barack Obama announces the resignation of National Security Adviser James L. Jones, who will be replaced by his deputy Thomas Donilon. (“Security adviser Jones the latest to leave Obama's White House”, by Sheldon Alberts, October 8, 2010, Leader-Post.)

Ah, Mr. Donilon’s brother, Mike, is Vice President Joe Biden’s adviser, and his wife Catherine Russell is Mrs. Jill Biden’s Chief of Staff – I can see the point of it. (“Jones to announce resignation today, Donilon to replace him”, by Josh Rogin, October 8, 2010, Foreign Policy.)

I am thinking about the Joe Biden who before assuming the vice presidency was this curious yet assertive chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during much of the short time in the New Millennium, providing the necessary scrutiny on George W. Bush’s War on Terror, and earlier had been the aggressive chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee known for his opposition to George H. W. Bush’s nomination of Clarence Thomas for the United States Supreme Court – Justice Thomas won in 1991 despite Biden and moreover despite Anita Hill who accused him of sexual harassment. (“Biden and Anita Hill, Revisited”, by Kate Phillips, August 23, 2008, The New York Times; “Joe Biden's the Man on Guantanamo, Iraq and the “War on Terror””, by Andy Worthington, August 24, 2008, The Huffington Post; and, “After Cheney”, by James Traub, November 29, 2009, The New York Times.)

What else, i.e., beside the Biden connections? Donilon was just in Beijing in early September, in a visit during which he and White House Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers met with at least five Chinese Communist Party Politburo members, eager to pressure China to let its Yuan currency appreciate. But soon after the visit Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration and ex-President of Harvard, tendered his resignation, and now less than three weeks later General Jones, ex-Commandant of the United States Marine Corps and former Allied Supreme Commander in Europe, follows. (“Summers, Donilon Get Unusual China Access as Yuan Debate Looms”, September 8, 2010, Bloomberg News; and, “Summers resigns as adviser on economy – Follows exits by Romer, Orszag”, by Kara Rowland, September 21, 2010, The Washington Times.)

Donilon and Biden are the men now, and we are talking about probably “back to the future”  in Biden’s way, who for decades took the commuter train daily from Wilmington, Delaware to the Union Station in Washington, D.C. to work at the Capitol, and whose favorite sport is women’s lacrosse! (“Biden First Nominee To Be Daily Amtrak Commuter?”, By Tom Acitelli, August 25, 2008, The New York Observer; “Biden announces change in Title IX women's sports policy”, by Jill Dougherty, April 20, 2010, CNN; and, “Joe Biden, No. 1 Fan of Women's Sports”, by Libby Sander, April 20, 2010, The Chronicle of Higher Education.)

Hopefully the changes of President Obama’s advisers and the increase of Joe Biden’s influence will lead to revisiting some important issues without falling into the danger of Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease – something I discussed in an earlier blog article, ““Nairobi to Shenzhen”, and on to Guangzhou”.

I actually am a sports fan, but not the type bitten by the ice hockey bug Canadians are supposed to be – as just reaffirmed by the installation of the new Governor General of Canada David Johnston, the British Queen’s vice-regal representative in Canada, in this case a former two-time hockey All-American at Harvard praised by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper as “a true all-rounder”. (“For new GG David Johnston, being vice-regal is a family affair”, by Heather Scoffield, October 2, 2010, Winnipeg Free Press.)

For a long time Canada’s only national sport was actually lacrosse – a game first invented by the aboriginal people – until 1994 when the Parliament officially designated hockey the national winter sport, and lacrosse the national summer sport albeit by this time lacrosse has only a small following. (Alain Bairner, Sport, nationalism, and globalization: European and North American perspectives, 2001, State University of New York Press; and, “National Sports of Canada Act”, 1994, Canadian Heritage.)

So if Mr. Biden is looking to Canada, he is a little late and the glass is not even half full – unless global warming works in his favor.

For me though, when I was younger I dabbled in various sports recreationally but lacking the physical build and strength I could only wish I had really been competitive – so I’ll choose lacrosse if I were to play.

I am also a fan of women’s sports, and when it gets to the right level of skills versus physical power I can like women’s more, such as in the case of international volleyball. I remember when I was a Berkeley grad student I once volunteered to drive some of the visiting Chinese junior women’s volleyball players around sightseeing; and the only other time at Berkeley when I drove for anyone of celebrity type was when the actress Joan Chen – later of the movie “The Last Emperor” fame – and her all-boys entourage came to town – an anecdote I mentioned in my earlier blog article, ““Nairobi to Shenzhen”, and on to Guangzhou”.

Many years later on October 23, 2001, the Canadian women’s national hockey team came to San Jose for an exhibition game with the American women’s, a warm-up for the Salt Lake City Olympics in which the two were expected to be the ultimate rivals (“News”, Stanford Canadian Club). I had just established connection with Bernard Etzinger, then Canadian Consul and Trade Commissioner in Silicon Valley (“Canada Plans Legislative Secretariat in Washington, D.C.”, by Larry Luxner, August 2004, The Washington Diplomat), and through him to Paula Fairweather and the local Canadian club she headed, Digital Moose Lounge (“A New Magnetic North – How Canada Can Attract and Retain Young Talent”, July 1, 2001, Canada25), and was very glad to go with the other transplanted Canadians to cheer for the girls.

It was a good hockey game, and an even more interestingly enjoyable experience when at game’s start Bernie brought over and introduced to me Beth Lawlor, a newly arrived post-doc researcher at the University of California medical school in San Francisco, who so happened had just received her Ph.D. from the University of British Columbia and studied with a cancer-research scientist to whom I am related – albeit on the downside I had been kicked out of UBC by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) on July 2, 1992 at the end of my faculty job there when a civil dispute with my then boss, “Maria”, had turned politically charged.

But somehow there was something unsettling on this occasion of an exciting girls’ hockey game, to me anyway: the Canadians’ coach who later would lead the women to Canada’s first Olympic hockey gold in 50 years, was Sergeant Danièle Sauvageau, a Montreal police officer sometimes undercover in narcotics and formerly with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“Danièle Sauvageau – Former Canadian Olympic Hockey Coach”, Speakers' Spotlight); then after the game, three Canadian players came to meet with us the local Canadians and the one towering above the other two was goalie Kim St. Pierre, a student at McGill University in Montreal (“2002 Games Team Canada – Kim St. Pierre”, Canoe.ca).

So it would take a Montreal police sergeant to lead the Canadian girls to make history, but was it just hockey – Sauvageau had distinguished herself as the founding coach of the Canadian junior women’s team (“Danièle Sauvageau”, Wikipedia) – or had there been safety concerns haunting the girls, like ghosts of the Montreal Massacre?

I hadn’t talked to Bernie (Etzinger) much after becoming acquainted with him only days earlier, but he was a friendly and no-nonsense guy, and at one point during the game he turned to me and said, “Last year I was invited to the wedding of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s daughter, and it was very nice, in 2000. It was Caroline. Or was it someone else?” (“Mulroney wedding to be a who's who”, August 23, 2ooo, CBC News.)

Ah hah, an unforgettable moment. I certainly knew only little about the Canadian liberal Frank magazine’s contest of “Deflower Caroline Mulroney” back in 1991, about then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s reaction to the joke about his only daughter, “I wanted to take a gun and go down there and do some serious damage to those people”, or about Caroline’s new husband Andrew Lapham, son of the famously liberal Lewis Lapham, editor of Harper’s Magazine. (“Lion of the US left”, by Gary Younge, March 5, 2003, The Guardian; and, “Mulroney’s Shadows: The Many Images of Canada’s Eighteenth Prime Minister”, by Jonathan Malloy, June 2008, Carlton University.)

But sitting with Mr. Etzinger the diplomatic consul on this occasion I was fully aware that Kim Campbell, Mulroney’s successor as the Progressive Conservative party leader and the first female Canadian Prime Minister, before that Justice Minister and my Member of Parliament in the Vancouver Centre riding during that earlier era, had just been the Canadian Consul General in Los Angeles from 1996 to 2000, overseeing several states including California, and Hawaii where I worked from 1997 to 1999. (“Campbell, Kim – Prime Minister of Canada (1993)”, Club of Madrid.)

Back in November 1992 I was politically active circulating press releases critical of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s leadership and conduct; then on November 30 several hours after I’d faxed the press releases to Campbell’s Vancouver MP office, RCMP Sergeant Brian Cotton led another officer arrived at my apartment, and he took me to UBC Hospital for a psychiatric assessment whereby I was involuntarily committed into the psychiatric ward. (I have mentioned some of this and related experiences in another blog article, “The myth of political vendetta in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s Airbus Affair investigation, the politics of Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien, and some social undercurrents in Canada”.)

In fact, I was more than aware when Bernie suddenly so casually mentioned Mulroney: in the no more than ten days or so since first meeting him at the San Jose Consulate and Trade Office I had enquired about Kim Campbell, told by him that he hadn’t worked with Campbell much because until recently he had been dealing with Peru matters within foreign affairs, nevertheless received Campbell’s Harvard e-mail address from him, and on October 22 – the day before this hockey game – I had sent an e-mail letter to Kim Campbell asking if she could revisit my political case.

Women are better than men in positions of authority only when they can use the law better and not just cloak themselves in the aura of womanhood. Whether that had been the case in Canada is not clear to me, only that most of Kim Campbell’s contemporary female political leaders did poorly in elections – Campbell herself especially whose leadership bid had possibly involved a deal for Mulroney’s endorsement. (My blog article, “Nairobi to Shenzhen”, and on to Guangzhou”.)

But sitting here with Mr. Bernard Etzinger the Canadian diplomatic consul – who several months later became deputy director of public relations and official spokesman at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C. – and watching the Canadian girls play hockey under their coach who was a former RCMP officer and active-duty Montreal police sergeant, I wasn’t a suspect in anything diabolically deadly, was I? No way, out of others’ minds but not mine.

But you never know in politics.

The Montreal Massacre that came to mind refers to an event on December 6, 1989 at École Polytechnique, the engineering school of the University of Montreal, where a young man Marc Lepine carried a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle into the building and killed 13 female students and one female staff. Lepine, the son of a Algerian father and a former Canadian nun mother, had allegedly been rejected by this school but on this occasion he picked out the women to shoot at. He yelled “I hate feminists”, and expressed his intent to kill them in a suicide note found on his body. (“Marc Lépine” and “École Polytechnique massacre”, Wikipedia.)

Canadians have generally been outraged by the atrocity. Gun-control law was soon strengthened by Justice Minister Kim Campbell, although it was not until the Liberal government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien in 1995 that a more general gun registry and more stringent restrictions were brought in – something I discussed in my blog article, “The myth of political vendetta in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s Airbus Affair investigation, the politics of Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien, and some social undercurrents in Canada”.

To the feminists and many others, Lepine’s act was clearly that of anti-feminism and he chose this school to target because it was a training ground for women in engineering (“Remembering the Montreal massacre”, by Terri Saunders, December 6, 2009, Canoe.ca):

“Investigators and sociology experts tried to understand why Lepine did what he did and why he chose to do it at Ecole Polytechnique. The overwhelming conclusion was Lepine felt the school, which offered non-traditional trades training to women in fields such as engineering, would be a good place to find women he labeled as feminists.”

But I think Sgt. Danièle Sauvageau of the Montreal police probably knows more details than most of us, like for instance, why Lepine had written the following in his suicide note claiming that he was “forced to take extreme acts” (“Marc Lépine”, Wikipedia):

“Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts.”

As a matter of fact Sgt. Sauvageau and many of her police colleagues may have also known Lepine’s last victim personally: Maryse Leclair, shot and then knifed to death by Lepine before he committed suicide, was the daughter of Pierre Leclair, director of public relations and chief spokesman for the Montreal police. Maryse Leclair’s name was actually on a list of 19 women Lepine had intended to kill, found with his suicide note. (“Montreal gun man had suicide note”, by David E. Pitt, December 8, 1989, The New York Times; Kevin Dwyer and Juré Fiorillo, True Stories of Law & Order: The Real Crimes Behind the Best Episodes of the Hit TV Show, 2006, Berkley Books; and, “École Polytechnique massacre”, Wikipedia.)

Many readers of the media stories about the Montreal Massacre may not have noticed an intriguing tale, that Maryse Leclair was a first cousin of Dominique Leclair, a friend of Marc Lepine’s from working together at a Montreal hospital where Lepine’s mother Monique was the nursing director and Dominique Leclair’s father was the hospital head who gave Marc Lepine the food-service job (“The Montreal massacre”, February 8, 1990, Canada.com):

“Dominique Leclair was 19 when she met Lepine that summer in the kitchen at St. Jude’s. Her father runs the hospital and was good friends with Monique Lepine when she was his nursing director. He gave Marc his job.

But that’s not why Dominique befriended Marc Lepine.

“I was kind to him because he was so hyperactive and nervous, nobody would talk to him at lunch or break time... Everyone else tried to avoid him because he was a bit strange because of his shyness.”

Lepine’s hyperactivity and his job didn’t mix either.

“He was always rushing things. He would never be calm.”

He raced the food carts the same way he did everything else. Always in a hurry. Soup got spilled. Dishes got broken.

Everytime he made a mess of something, his reaction was always the same: “Ah shit.”

Finally, he was put on food-serving duty in the cafeteria where his pace would at least be tempered by the task. But the steamy kitchen atmosphere had festered his already unsightly acne problem.

Dominique recalls: “The employees would say they didn’t want him to serve them their lunch because of his acne. They were mean.”

Lepine was stuffed back in the kitchen where no one would have to look at his pimples.

He tried growing a beard to hide the acne, but it was scraggly and seemed to make the rest of his complexion worse. He would cut it off and grow it again like a suburban lawn.

No matter how hard he might have tried, Lepine just couldn’t shed his shyness. Even with Dominique, he would stir his food and stare at the floor when he was speaking.”

So much about the Montreal Massacre being a random act of extreme violence. Although from China I have many second cousins born and raised in North America, including those in the successful Ling family in Canada (my blog article, “The myth of political vendetta in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s Airbus Affair investigation, the politics of Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien, and some social undercurrents in Canada”); now if a colleague of one of them pulled a stunt or played a trick on me, would I consider it “random”, not “institutional”?

We see that even though Marc Lepine eventually became a monster of a human being and a “Mad Killer”, he had also endured a lot of emotional abuse over the years not just from his father as the media like to emphasize but from others in the community. The fact that in the end he lost it not only in an extreme manner but in a planned and premeditated manner makes Marc Lepine’s case worth further scrutiny.

It reminds me of a former Berkeley math professor I once studied briefly with. Prof. Andrew Majda was known for his strong temperament, and the year I was auditing a graduate class from him he was in the process of moving to Princeton which had made him an important job offer. Near the Berkeley classroom there was construction work going on at the time and the noise sometimes got really loud, and Majda would burst into tantrums like, “It’s driving me crazy, they are driving me out of Berkeley.”

Andrew Majda’s wife, Prof. Gerta Keller, an expert in the study of dinosaur evolution, has told of a tale of travelling in Algeria as an adventurous 20-year-old Swiss woman in 1965, not being let go by Algerian soldiers at the border, and exhorted by a 24-year-old or so looking French commander of the soldiers as possibly “the obstinate female I can’t get rid of”. (“Gerta Keller”, by Donna Gialanella, January 27, 2008, The Star-Ledger.)

I don’t know if anyone was trying to drive Prof. Majda out of Berkeley, but there have been others who questioned some of the feminist political agendas in the context of the Montreal Massacre.

University of Toronto computer science professor Charles Rackoff – someone in my professional field with whom I had at least some passing acquaintance – stirred a major controversy in December 2000 when he wrote some comments in an e-mail about a memorial service to mark the Montreal Massacre, comparing the feminist agenda to the Klu-Klux-Klan’s (“Professor criticizes Montreal massacre memorials”, December 7, 2000, CBC News):

“It is obvious that the point of this is not to remember anyone. The point is to use the death of these people as an excuse to promote the feminist/extreme left-wing agenda.”

“It is no different, and no more justified, than when organizations such as the Klu-Klux-Klan (sic) use the murder of a white person by a black person as an excuse to promote their agenda.”

Fortunately I am by no means cynical like, or so universal in doubting about political agendas as, my respected senior Prof. Charles Rackoff, whose remarks touched off a wave of condemnations from within the university (“Campus Briefs”, January 8, 2001, The McGill Tribune).

The city of Montreal in French-speaking Quebec has been one of the North American cities with an unusually high profile of social violence – in Montreal’s case at universities and colleges. After the 1989 Montreal Massacre, in August 1992 there was a multiple-murder shooting at Concordia University that killed 4 male engineering professors and wounded a female secretary.

After a more recent occurrence of multiple shooting in Montreal, in September 2006 at Dawson College killing a female student and wounding scores of men and women, The Globe and Mail newspaper published a front-page article in which columnist Jan Wong expressed the view that these killings had resulted from social resentment due to marginalization of immigrant minorities (“The Montreal Shootings – ‘Get under the desk’”, by Jan Wong, September 16, 2006, The Globe and Mail (courtesy of Vigile.net)):

“What many outsiders don’t realize is how alienating the decades-long linguistic struggle has been in the once-cosmopolitan city. It hasn’t just taken a toll on long-time anglophones, it’s affected immigrants, too. To be sure, the shootings in all three cases were carried out by mentally disturbed individuals. But what is also true is that in all three cases, the perpetrator was not pure laine, the argot for a “pure” francophone. Elsewhere, to talk of racial “purity” is repugnant. Not in Quebec.

In 1989, Marc Lepine shot and killed 14 women and wounded 13 others at the University of Montreal’s École Polytechnique. He was a francophone, but in the eyes of pure laine Quebeckers, he was not one of them, and would never be. He was only half French-Canadian. He was also half Algerian, a Muslim, and his name was Gamil Gharbi. Seven years earlier, after the Canadian Armed Forces rejected his application under that name, he legally changed his name to Marc Lepine.

Valery Fabrikant, an engineering professor, was an immigrant from Russia. In 1992, he shot four colleagues and wounded one other at Concordia University’s faculty of engineering after learning he would not be granted tenure.

This week’s killer, Kimveer Gill, was, like Marc Lepine, Canadian-born and 25. On his blog, he described himself as of “Indian” origin. (In their press conference, however, the police repeatedly referred to Mr. Gill as of “Canadian” origin.)

It isn’t known when Mr. Gill’s family arrived in Canada. But he attended English elementary and high schools in Montreal. That means he wasn’t a first-generation Canadian. Under the restrictions of Bill 101, the province’s infamous language law, that means at least one of his parents must have been educated in English elementary or high schools in Canada.

To be sure, Mr. Lepine hated women, Mr. Fabrikant hated his engineering colleagues and Mr. Gill hated everyone. But all of them had been marginalized, in a society that valued pure laine.”

Jan Wong probably hadn’t anticipated the furor her article would cause. It was roundly criticized by many in Quebec including Quebecois journalists, and called a “disgrace” by Quebec Premier Jean Charest, who questioned why French culture was singled out to blame (“Charest blasts Toronto reporter”, September 19, 2006, Montreal Gazette):

“The recent events at Dawson College seem to defy all logic. These events have brought back painful memories-for all of us in Québec, as well as people in the US, France, Ireland, Russia and to all other nations-who have experienced similar tragedies in recent years. This tragedy is certainly reminiscent of the shootings that took place in downtown Toronto on December 26, 2005.

In this kind of situation, anyone who ventures to put forward explanations or comparisons at the very least risks making a fool of himself. Jan Wong has certainly discredited herself with her gamble.

I was shocked and disappointed by the narrow-minded analysis published in the Saturday, September 16 edition, in which Ms Wong sought to identify the affirmation of French culture in Québec as the deeper cause of the Dawson College shootings and the killings at the Polytechnique in 1989.”

In the above quote, Charest stated that the Dawson College shooting reminded him of the shootings in downtown Toronto, on December 26, 2005. In that  Boxing Day incident a white teenage girl, Jane Creba, out shopping with her family, was critically shot – and later died in hospital – when two groups of mostly black youths had an argument in front of a Foot Locker store and exchanged gunfire. (“If Jane Creba had been black”, by Arthur Weinreb, January 11, 2006, Canada Free Press; “Doctor only steps away from Creba”, by Peter Small, November 11, 2008, Toronto Star; “Four suspects acquitted in Creba shooting”, November 23, 2009, CTV Toronto; and, “Judge sentences final two men in Creba killing”, by Megan O’Toole, August 26, 2010, National Post.).

Premier Charest had a reason to be incensed that Jan Wong had picked out Quebec’s French language law to blame, but one should not ignore the fact that in all of the three multiple-shooting cases in Montreal as cited by Wong the perpetrator was a member of an immigrant-minority culture while the victims tended to be more mainstream white and better educated, and likely had not been picked at random. Even in the case of Jane Creba’s death in Toronto, the “accidental” nature of her being caught in the crossfire between black gang members should not be presumed – at least I would not – until the undercurrent of its circumstances is adequately assessed without prejudice.

But then what the Canadian Parliament, which essentially represented the country in such a situation of public controversy, and The Globe and Mail newspaper did were excessive in my opinion, amounting to letting democracy be an institutional means to suppress a vital function of democracy that in this instance had incurred the wrath of some: the House of Commons unanimously passed a resolution calling for an apology to Quebec, and The Globe and Mail’s editor-in-chief Edward Greenspon who had cleared Wong’s article for publication, fired her and also imposed a gag order that she not speak publicly – in exchange for money, which she agreed to for a set period of time. (“Gagged No Longer: Controversial Journalist Breaks Silence”, by Jason Li, October 16, 2009, Digital Journal.)

It’s true that the journalist Jan Wong had a history of small acts of radical behavior that smack of ambitious opportunism (“Jan Wong, disgrace to journalism”, by Warren Kinsella, September 28, 2006, National Post; and, “The one who didn’t get away”, by Brian Bethune, October 31, 2007, Maclean’s), and in this case her logic of deduction to blame Quebec’s French language law was probably not sound. But if each time something like this happens the journalist has to apologize and retract simply because her criticism is directed at part of the political/legal institution, then any part of such institution when cloaked in the veil of secrecy or deception, and with the official appearance of democracy, would be untouchable by the media or the public, and thus become an organ of authoritarianism rather than democracy.

Montreal Gazette Columnist Hubert Bauch pointed out that this was exactly the outcome when it came to the French language law (“Jan Wong was misguided, maybe. But why the fuss?”, by Hubert Bauch, October 1, 2006, The Gazette (courtesy of Vigile.net)):

“The worst thing about what’s being called “l’affaire Wong” is that it makes it more difficult to rationally discuss what is in fact a very real problem, the integration of non-francophone immigrants and visible minorities into the mainstream of Quebec, said Jack Jedwab, executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies and former Quebec regional director of the Canadian Jewish Congress.

Racism is no more prevalent in Quebec than anywhere else, he is quick to say. But because of the particular nature of Quebec society and the complications of the language situation, the problem of integrating newcomers is more acute than elsewhere.

“They’re not being included in the decision-making fabric of Quebec,” Jedwab said. “If you look at the nominations process, to boards, committees, to various positions, Quebec has an absolutely abysmal record. Its public service by all standards has the lowest representation of visible minorities of any province or state in North America.””

Whether some of these high-profile cases of violence have been connected to gender politics, race politics, or other politics, my experience tells me that political agendas do often attempt to take control of issues of public debate and force outcomes in a direction wanted by powerful interests.

Thus I find it regrettable when the Canadian House of Commons recently intervened again to condemn, once more unanimously, a September 2010 Maclean’s Magazine cover story that calls Quebec the most corrupt province in Canada.

When this recent article came out, Liberal Member of Parliament Marc Garneau characterized it as “sensationalism”, “unworthy of a Canadian magazine” and “divisive” for the magazine’s use of the Quebec symbol Bonhomme Carnaval on its cover (“Will House demand Maclean’s apologize to Quebec?”, by Norman Spector, September 25, 2010, The Globe and Mail), but then the parliamentary motion was introduced, and Mr. Garneau expressed some concern that it might be overreacting (“Parliament rebukes Maclean’s”, by John Geddes, September 30, 2010, Maclean’s Magazine):

“If in two weeks, another magazine writes something that’s considered excessive,” Garneau said, “we can’t make a habit of putting out a motion every time we’re not happy about what’s written in the media.”

In my opinion, the “corrupt” label may be offensive to Quebec but the facts cited in the Maclean’s article cannot be denied out of hand, and Quebec Premier Jean Charest has inherited dubious political connections to some past practices perceived as corrupt by the public. (My Facebook comments and links posted to Andrew Coyne, national editor of Maclean’s Magazine, http://www.facebook.com/walltowall.php?id=1761327938&banter_id=712680225, and to David Frum, Canadian-American columnist, http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=164721990204765&id=555811580.)

(A week after the initial posting of a draft in progress for this blog article, on October 15 Maclean’s Magazine’s Facebook page announced that its national editor Andrew Coyne’s Facebook account was hacked and was then removed by Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/MacleansMagazine/posts/157752344258228. The comments I left with Andrew who was a Facebook friend of mine are therefore gone, but the earlier cited Facebook “wall-to-wall” link is kept in this article as a record – I hope Andrew Coyne is not suffering like Jan Wong was.)

The mentality that every time someone in the media says something terribly offensive the person and the message need to be condemned is rather old and should be considered outdated, but unfortunately civility is often equated with democracy – even in modern Canadian politics – and that serves to suppress meaningful discussions and debates. Columnist David Frum puts it somewhat cynically when he compares it to the old English law of “seditious libel” (“Truth is no defence”, by David Frum, October 2, 2010, National Post):

“Some may wonder: What specifically about the Maclean’s piece gave such offence? The piece was built upon uncontested facts, including such nuggets as the information that to build a highway in Quebec costs 30% more per mile than anywhere else in Canada. It quoted acknowledged experts, including Quebec politicians. Nobody has detected -- or even suggested --any important errors of fact or interpretation in the piece.

But to ask the question is to misunderstand the problem.

In the old law of England, there existed a crime of “seditious libel” -- a libel that specifically affected the reputation of the sovereign. In a case of seditious libel, truth was not a defence. Very much to the contrary: As the saying went, truth compounded libel.

If you said the king was an imbecile, when he was not an imbecile, that would be bad. But if you said the king was an imbecile and he actually was an imbecile -- that would be very, very much worse.”

In his article accompanying the Maclean’s cover story, columnist Andrew Coyne points out that power and impotence are among the important factors in politics that can corrupt the political process (“What lies beneath Quebec’s scandals”, by Andrew Coyne, September 24, 2010, Maclean’s Magazine):

“Fighting corruption has often proved the best opportunity for it. The young Maurice Duplessis made his name denouncing the venality of Louis-Alexandre Taschereau’s government (Taschereau was eventually forced from office on charges of abusing public funds, the third Quebec premier to suffer this indignity), much as Brian Mulroney rose to fame for his work on the Cliche commission—and just as Jean Chrétien came to power promising to clean up the mess left by Mulroney. Sponsorships, Shawinigate, the ghostly voters of the Gaspésie, Airbus: there’s a pattern here, and it’s useless to deny it.

What explains Quebec’s unusual susceptibility to money politics? Deeply entrenched deference to authority? A worldly Catholic tolerance of official vice? There is no grand unified theory: at different times and in different situations, different forces have come into play. Nevertheless, a few broad factors emerge:

Power corrupts, but so does impotence. Healthy political cultures are marked by contestability: results are unpredictable, success is incremental, and neither victory nor defeat are ever far from view. But the tendency, in federal politics, for Quebecers to throw their support to one party or another en bloc—and the province’s outsized importance, therefore, in deciding elections—has given rise to a peculiar set of pathologies.

…”

Power can control, and impotence may mean reliance on that power of control and hence the en bloc approach in electoral politics that when unchecked can have the tendency to encroach on other vital parts of a democracy.

Returning to my personal story earlier, but fast forward from the Team Canada-Team USA women’s hockey game in San Jose, California, on October 23, 2001, which as said earlier was one day after my sending an e-mail letter to Kim Campbell enquiring about my old political case first presented to her through her Member of Parliament constituency office on November 30, 1992, when RCMP officers soon came to take me to a psychiatric committal.

In February 2003 I was now in Toronto, Canada, and through Lori Dawe, constituency director for then Progressive Conservative party leader Joe Clark, I requested a meeting with Mr. Clark, who had been the Minister of Constitutional Affairs in 1992 overseeing the Charlottetown constitutional process under then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. I submitted a number of questions to Joe Clark, under four categories:

a) “Western alienation” and the Charlottetown constitutional campaign;

b) Bring Quebec into the constitution, and the balance between the interests of
Quebec and those of the western provinces;

c) Your contributions to the Charlottetown constitutional process, vs. contributions
by former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney; and

d) Distinct Society, Aboriginal self-government, and ethnic minority cultures.

These topics had been part of my interest back in 1992 when I circulated press releases critical of Brian Mulroney’s leadership and conduct, and Joe Clark’s role in constitutional reform was mentioned in some of them. But by the time in 2003 when I tried to connect directly to Clark, I had shifted my attentions away and back to computer science and software engineering, working in Hawaii and California from 1997 onward, and so my memory in 2003 of the earlier politics was a little faulty. Later during 2009 I took the time to review some of these constitutional and political issues, and my survey and analysis – including copies of some of the old press releases – can be found in my blog article, “The myth of political vendetta in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s Airbus Affair investigation, the politics of Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien, and some social undercurrents in Canada”.

Nonetheless, the questions I raised to Joe Clark in early 2003 were meaningful, and some of them are excerpted here (My document, “Questions for honorable Joe Clark, February 12, 2003”).

From under a):

“It is somewhat puzzling to me that the Charlottetown accord, formed on the basis of broad nationwide consultations, and backed up by a strong group of political leaders from the west including yourself and Ms. Kim Campbell, faired rather disappointingly in the national referendum in the western provinces.

Is there a clearly identifiable explanation(s) for this? Could it be that the western populace found the referendum a good occasion to vent their angers, regardless of the substances in it for the west’s interests? Or could it be that the final form of the accord was perceived as relatively weak for the interests of the west, and therefore did not satisfy the voters? If the latter were the case, what would be your view of what to blame, the difficult-to-satisfy appetite of the west (analogous to what former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau commented on about the popular mood in Quebec), or certain aspects of the accord desire to be improved?”

From under b):

“Therefore, when the Charlottetown accord did not do well in the national referendum in the western provinces and in the referendum in Quebec, it appeared to be evidence of regional conflicts being hard to resolve.

What is your opinion on this issue, that the gaps between the interests of the two regions were indeed difficult to bridge and the Charlottetown accord did as much as could be done at the time, armed with the knowledge and wisdom gained through expert and grass-root consultations? Could it be, instead, that some elements of the accord may not have been very good in this area, even in your judgment?”

From under c):

“Another major intervention by Mr. Mulroney, I remember, was with the final form of the accord (the consensus report). I cannot remember the details of the points by now, and would have difficulty finding the old media coverage stories on it (The Vancouver Sun newspaper had a long article on this during that time). The thrust of the story was that the accord draft in its pre-final form was completed by you after committee discussions and several rounds of inter-provincial negotiations. At the time Mr. Mulroney was busy with other governmental affairs and went on a foreign trip near the end. When he returned, he was displeased with some aspects of the accord and made several changes before taking it to the last round of negotiation with the premiers.

What were the main changes made by Mr. Mulroney at that time? I seem to
remember things about the senate (natural resources?) and about manpower control for Quebec, in particular.”

Under d):

“The French people of Canada, being one of the two European groups to first settle in the land that is now Canada, and the aboriginal people who by most historical accounts were the first to inhabit this land and were the inhibitors [correction: inhabitants] when the Europeans came, are certainly unique in their (powerful) positions in the Canadian society. But they are not unique in their desires to integrate with the rest of the Canadians but at the same time to preserve their native languages and cultures. Should the constitution address these issues for the other ethnic groups in a more definitive manner, beyond the ethnic minority rights in the charter? Would something like the Canadian Mosaic thinking be a good thing in formal language in the constitution? The Canadian constitutional experiments are interesting in an international sense as they may provide valuable lessons and precedence to a big part of the world.”

My document with the above and other questions were sent via e-mail to Lori Dawe on February 12, 2003. It took quite a while before Joe Clark sent me an e-mail reply, on April 3, 2003, the content of which is as follows (My document, “E-mail reply from Joe Clark, April 3, 2003”):

“Dear Dr. Gao:

Thank you very much for your recent letter concerning Western alienation and the Charlottetown Accord. I appreciate your having taken the time to contact me.

Once I cease to be Leader of the PC Party, I am hoping to have more time to adequately reflect upon that period of our collective history and perhaps, at some point in the future, I will put pen to paper and write my memoirs. Until then, however, I must deal with the present and as such, unfortunately, I am not be able to meet with you to discuss the issues you have raised.

Sincerely,

Joe Clark”

At the time, Joe Clark had in August 2002 announced his intent to resign as PC party leader, and in November 2002 a party leadership convention was set for May 29-31, 2003 in Toronto. (“Clark agrees to give up leadership”, by Tim Naumetz, August 7, 2002, Ottawa Citizen; “Tories set tentative dates: Leadership convention in late May or early June”, by Maria Babbage, October 6, 2002, The Telegram; and, “How Eves can thwart the Liberals and (maybe) avoid humiliation”, by Adam Radwanski, November 7, 2002, The Ottawa Citizen.)

But why was Joe Clark not only unwilling to discuss the constitutional issues with me – not that he had to – but essentially stating that he would not discuss them until when he wrote his memoirs?

To this day Clark has not published any memoir and has been largely inactive in public when it comes to Canadian constitutional issues. It is a far cry from his first departure from electoral politics in 1993 when he wrote and published the book, A Nation Too Good To Lose: Renewing The Purpose of Canada, in 1994 (“Talk about Renewing Canada – A summary of books and articles relating to the question of national unity”, Dialogue Canada), and a far cry even from Brian Mulroney who has published an 1152 page memoir in September 2007 focusing just on his earlier years to the time of his 1993 retirement from politics (“Memoirs 1939-1993, Written by Brian Mulroney”, McClelland).

When I scrutinize Joe Clark’s terse reply more carefully and ponder about any hidden meanings, there appears to be an answer emerging as in the following:

1) “that period of our collective history” – it means Clark hadn’t made all his decisions alone – there was Mulroney and there was the party at the least – and now it’s not that straightforward he could discuss them at his own will;

2) “Once I cease to be Leader of the PC Party, I am hoping to have more time to adequately reflect” – at this time Clark was also the party leader so his current consideration for the “collective” was more than just about the past;

3) “perhaps, at some point in the future, I will put pen to paper and write my memoirs. Until then, however, I must deal with the present” – only until when he writes his memoir that he would not be dealing with the present, i.e., even after retirement as the party leader it still wouldn’t be the future but the present, and that ‘later present’ may include his own reflection but not open discussion on the collective past.

The message was constant as I understand it: the past had been “collective”, the present was “collective”, and the future without Joe Clark would still be the “collective” present; the barometer of change to the real future is when Clark himself “perhaps” writes his memoir and touches on some of these topics – that so far hasn’t happened.

Brian Mulroney had been the boss of a big party during that “collective” past, Joe Clark was the boss of a small party in April 2003 when he sent me this reply, and Peter MacKay became the boss in late May 2003 when he replaced Clark as leader; then a few months later in December MacKay led the Progressive Conservative party to a merger with the Reform party (then called Canadian Alliance) under Stephen Harper to form the Conservative party. (“The Conservative Party of Canada”, January 30, 2006, CBC News.)

Now with Stephen Harper as the leader of this new party, and especially with Brian Mulroney having played a patriarchic role to help bring about the merger, Joe Clark is entitled to none of the “collective future” if it ever comes. In fact, Clark and the progressive wing of the PC party strongly opposed the merger, with Clark sitting out the remainder of his Member of Parliament term as an independent as well as declaring his support for then incoming Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin; Harper doesn’t like Clark at all if only for this reason, although he has also maintained some degree of skepticism about Mulroney. (“Progressives at the brink”, by Joe Clark, November 14, 2003, The Globe and Mail (courtesy of davidorchard.com); “Joe Clark says he’d choose Martin over Harper”, April 26, 2004, CTV News; “The Right Honourable Joe”, May 14, 2004, CBC News; and, “Mulroney casts long shadow in Harper circle”, by Jane Taber, November 10, 2007, The Globe and Mail.)

I have wondered why Joe Clark chose to use the word “cease” to describe the end of his party leadership – a rather archaic and unflattering usage in this situation – and whether it gave away a sense that his party could “cease” to exist soon (a more typical use of the word).

I think Clark had a sense that the party was going to cease its presence soon, even though at the time the leadership frontrunner Peter MacKay denied any such intention (The Conservative Party of Canada”, January 30, 2006, CBC News); and I have also come to think of the merger prospect at that point as probably linked to the future plan of the former party leader in between Kim Campbell and Joe Clark – Jean Charest the once young rising star. It was Charest who was generally believed to have a future to lead the Progressive Conservative party back to government after it had nearly been eliminated in the 1993 election under Campbell when many of the MP seats in western Canada were taken over by the upstart Reform party and the Quebec ones taken over by the upstart Bloc Quebecois. But after the 1997 election the PC party was still far behind either the opposition Reform party or the separatist Bloc Quebecois in its standing in the House of Commons, and in 1998 Charest bolted to become leader of the Quebec Liberal party, which was also in opposition. (“Jean Charest” and “Progressive Conservative Party of Canada”, Wikipedia; and, “Former Quebec minister accuses Charest Liberals of major ethics violations”, April 13, 2010, The Daily Gleaner.)

On February 12, 2003 when I sent my list of questions to Joe Clark with a request for a meeting, there was no election in Quebec, then in March the Parti Quebecois government there called an election. The polls in Quebec during March mostly put the separatist party ahead of Charest’s Liberal party, until Jean Charest’s performance in a leaders’ debate at the end of March brought a sudden surge of popularity for him and for his party. (“PQ Takes Lead In Quebec Provincial Election”, March 30, 2003, and, “Liberals Take Lead In Quebec”, April 3, 2003, Angus Reid Public Opinion.)

The first poll results clearly in favor of Charest and his party went public on April 3, the same day Joe Clark sent me the earlier-quoted e-mail reply. (“Quebec: Charest Won Election Debate”, April 3, 2003, Angus Reid Public Opinion.)

In the April 14 election Jean Charest won a majority government, defeating the PQ under Premier Bernard Landry.

My sense is that during the February-April 2003 period Joe Clark waited until the Quebec election prospect and situation became clear, that Jean Charest would stay in Quebec as the next Premier, to send me a response conveying his feeling that the future did not look good for his federal PC party.

After all, Peter MacKay is the son of Elmer MacKay, a former senior figure in the Mulroney government, also known as one of the prominent Canadian friends of German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber, the central figure in the Airbus Affair regarding tens of millions of dollars he distributed in Canada for the 1988 sale of Airbus planes to Air Canada, some of which may have gone to officials and politicians in government, possibly including Prime Minister Mulroney personally. (“Former Mulroney aide denies Schreiber’s allegations”, December 6, 2007, CBC News; and, my blog article, “The myth of political vendetta in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s Airbus Affair investigation, the politics of Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien, and some social undercurrents in Canada”.)

Peter MacKay had all the reason to agree to a merger, and Brian Mulroney all the reasons to ferment one: the Reform party enjoyed a squeaky-clean image, and as long as the leadership of the new party went to a Reformer – it should given the Reform party’s much larger size and stronger position in the House of Commons – whatever collective past and unsavory past of the Progressive Conservative party would be buried and considered dealt with.

The timing of it was also critical: in August 2002 a few weeks after Joe Clark’s announcement of his retirement intent, then Prime Minister Jean Chretien of the Liberal party did it also – after winning three back-to-back majority government terms that earned him a place in history and outlasting Brian Mulroney in the length of time served as Prime Minister; eventually Chretien stepped down in December 2003 (my blog article, “The myth of political vendetta in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s Airbus Affair investigation, the politics of Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien, and some social undercurrents in Canada”). The merger of the Progressive Conservative party with the Reform party came only days before Chretien’s stepping down and presented a stronger party of the right ready to take on Chretien’s party on the left after his departure.

These motives were quite likely behind what happened in the December 2003 merger and then with the new Conservative party, except that Karlheinz Schreiber, who had begun to turn against Brian Mulroney in 1999, also stepped up his efforts to expose Mulroney and win his fight to avoid extradition to his native Germany where he faced criminal charges of fraud and tax evasion. The first media report of some murky $300,000 Schreiber had given Mulroney during the 1990s came in November 2003 – just before the party merger.

My blog article, “The myth of political vendetta in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s Airbus Affair investigation, the politics of Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien, and some social undercurrents in Canada”, has touched on some of these topics about Karlheinz Schreiber and Brian Mulroney. The Mulroney-Schreiber squabble became known as the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, and was the subject of a 2008-09 public inquiry led by Justice Jeffrey J. Oliphant; however, under mandates recommended by Dr. David Johnston – as earlier mentioned now the new Governor General of Canada appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper – and adopted by the Harper government, the inquiry would only examine the business and financial relationship between the two – mostly focusing on the $300,000 as conducted by the Oliphant Commission.

In the end, Justice Oliphant’s inquiry report has given Brian Mulroney a slap on the wrist, a very light one, concluding that Mulroney’s business and financial dealings with Schreiber were inappropriate and violated the ethics rules set by his own government in 1985 (“Oliphant Commission Report”, May 31, 2010, Commission of Inquiry into Certain Allegations Respecting Business and Financial Dealings Between Karlheinz Schreiber and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney):

“… I found that the business and financial dealings between Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney were inappropriate. I also found that Mr. Mulroney’s failure to disclose those business and financial dealings was inappropriate.

Simply put, Mr. Mulroney, in his business and financial dealings with Mr. Schreiber, failed to live up to the standard of conduct that he had himself adopted in the 1985 Ethics Code.”

Karlheinz Schreiber wasn’t that dumb, at least not as to let himself be the fall guy hung out to dry for so little. Schreiber wrote and talked extensively in the last few years about the matters involving Mulroney. He stated unequivocally to the Oliphant Commission that his relationship with Brian Mulroney had begun with his helping depose then Progressive Conservative party leader (and former Prime Minister) Joe Clark and install Mulroney as the party leader in 1983 (“Summary of Interview of Karlheinz Schreiber”, March 24, 2009, Commission of Inquiry into Certain Allegations Respecting Business and Financial Dealings Between Karlheinz Schreiber and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney):

“Mr. Schreiber recalled that in the late 1970s, he was approached in Germany by Walter Wolf and told that Canadian conservatives were seeking support. According to Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Wolf invited him to Newfoundland to meet with Frank Moores, who had just left office as Premier of Newfoundland. At the time, Mr. Moores was president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada [sic] (the “PC Party”), and he and Mr. Wolf were looking for support for Mr. Mulroney.

Mr. Schreiber stated that soon after his introduction to Mr. Moores, he met Mr. Mulroney who was president of Iron Ore, for the first time. Subsequent to this meeting, Mr. Moores asked Mr. Schreiber for funding, which was initially to be used for the 1983 party convention in Winnipeg. Mr. Schreiber was told that delegates were to be flown from Quebec to Winnipeg by Max Ward to ensure there would be sufficient votes against then party leader Joe Clark. Mr. Schreiber donated $30,000 or $50,000 CAD to this cause through his Alberta company MLE Industries. He gave the donation directly to Mr. Wolf (through his lawyer Michael Cogger) who may have claimed the donation as his own.”

Twenty years later, in the evening of the first day of the 2003 Tory (PC) party convention to elect a new leader to replace him, May 29, 2003, a tribute was held for Joe Clark at the convention venue, Toronto Metro Convention Centre. Joe Clark and his family were there.

Brian Mulroney wasn’t there, not arriving at the convention until the next day, but he did send a videotaped message full of praise for Joe Clark, especially for Clark as his government’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, and full of boasts about their friendship.

I was there at the tribute for Joe Clark, even though I have never been a Tory. The tribute gathering was open to the public and I attended as a small gesture of respect for Mr. Joe Clark. I don’t know how many in the public like me at the time anticipated – probably a lot more among the party delegates in the packed convention hall – that in a few months Mulroney would become a guiding patron of a newly merged party without Joe Clark, one that would return to governing in another two years or so – obviously without Joe Clark.

When it comes to his political image Brian Mulroney is a control freak where his influence can extend to, and from time to time quite a few journalists have looked upon him as a sort of Richard Nixon of Canadian politics. (“WASHINGTON NOTEBOOK”, by Susan Chung, December 1, 1995, Time – Colonist; “Free Speech; Canada Still Has Mulroney to Kick Around”, by Clifford Krauss, September 25, 2005, The New York Times; “Mulroney’s Shadows: The Many Images of Canada’s Eighteenth Prime Minister”, by Jonathan Malloy, June 2008, Carlton University; and, “The Mulroney show; Canadians are reminded why they dislike him so much”, by Don MacPherson, May 16, 2009, The Gazette.)

It was thus not surprising to see Brian Mulroney talk forcefully, and quite intimidatingly, before and during the Oliphant inquiry about defending his “father’s good name”, asserting that he kept his business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber secret because he feared the Airbus Affair events of 1995-97 that “scarred me and my family for life”. (“Whatever did Mulroney expect after taking the cash?”, November 27, 2007, The Vancouver Sun; “Mulroney says he feared renewed Airbus attacks”, May 12, 2009, Fort Frances Times; and, “Mulroney: Bear Head deal kept secret to avoid another Airbus controversy”, May 12, 2009, The (Charlottetown) Guardian.)

But the logic really should be the opposite, that if Mulroney hadn’t done anything wrong false allegations could stick only temporarily yet nondisclosure on his part would keep them persist.

I remember commenting in a press release in November 1992, just after the Charlottetown constitutional referendum, somewhat cynically about then Constitutional Affairs Minister Joe Clark:

“Poor Mr. Clark, he never failed Mr. Mulroney, not yet anyway”.

Well, has Joe Clark ever, or ever will.

That time over a decade earlier I was muzzled when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police sent me to the psychiatric ward only hours after I had faxed press releases critical of Mulroney to Kim Campbell’s Member of Parliament constituency office. This time I communicated with Joe Clark through his constituency office and received a polite but “perhaps” revealing reply. Maybe – just maybe – this time Joe Clark was muzzled also but to a lesser degree.

The RCMP officer taking me to psychiatric committal on November 30, 1992 was appropriately named “Brian Cotton”. Later in 1993 another RCMP officer acting as liaison with some other psychiatric institutions over my case was identified as “Corporal Libel”.

I wonder if the “cotton” was clean, and whether the “libel” was considered “seditious”.

(Continuing to Part 2)