声援刘毅，AOCC呼吁列治文市议会撤销相关动议

加拿大华裔保守联盟（AOCC）来稿：近日，自媒体博主刘毅因发表一篇呼吁华裔选民积极参与投票的文章，遭列治文市议会通过动议予以谴责，并决定将事件提交BC人权法庭处理，引发社会广泛关注。

我们认为，刘毅先生在文章中使用AI生成配图，确有欠妥之处，可能造成歧义，并可能对相关候选人及族裔人士造成不良影响。对此，刘毅先生已第一时间公开道歉，承认自己的失误，并向相关人士表达歉意。对于已经主动认错、真诚承担责任的人，社会应鼓励其纠正错误，而不是让事件不断升级。

更值得关注的是，列治文市议会在通过谴责动议前，并未给予刘毅先生陈述事实、回应质疑或作出说明的机会。这种做法容易引发公众对程序公正（Procedural Fairness）的关注。程序公正是加拿大行政法的重要原则，公共机构在作出可能影响个人声誉和权益的决定时，应尽可能给予当事人合理表达意见的机会，以维护公众对公共决策的信任。

同时，是否构成《卑诗省人权法》 (BC Human Rights Code)所禁止的歧视，应由依法具有管辖权的机构依据事实、证据和法律独立作出判断，而不宜由政治机构预先作出定性。市议会作为公共机构，在涉及可能进入法律程序的个案时，更应保持客观、中立和克制，避免给公众造成“未审先判”的观感，维护法律程序的独立性和公信力。

《加拿大权利与自由宪章》(Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms )第2(b)条保障每个人享有思想、信仰、意见和表达自由，尤其高度保护涉及公共事务和民主参与的政治言论。虽然表达自由并非绝对，涉及仇恨宣传、歧视或诽谤的言论可以依法受到限制，但根据《宪章》第1条，任何限制都必须依法作出，并能够证明属于自由民主社会中合理且必要的限制。对于一篇旨在鼓励公民积极投票、但因AI配图不当而引发争议的文章，在当事人已经公开道歉的情况下，继续采取政治谴责并推动法律程序，是否属于必要且适度的回应，值得社会理性讨论。

我们反对将个别失误无限放大，并将正常的社区公民倡导行为政治化、标签化。一张存在争议的AI配图，不应成为否定整篇文章宗旨、否定公民参与公共事务权利的理由。如果普通市民因担忧遭受政治谴责而不敢公开表达意见、参与社区讨论或鼓励公民投票，就可能产生《宪章》司法实践中所关注的“寒蝉效应（Chilling Effect）”，削弱公民依法参与民主政治的积极性。这不仅无助于促进列治文不同族裔之间的理解与沟通，也不符合加拿大鼓励公民广泛参与公共事务的民主精神。

加拿大华裔保守联盟呼吁列治文市议会及社会各界回归理性、尊重事实、恪守程序公正，重新审视并撤销相关动议，避免因处理方式失当而对公民表达自由和政治参与造成不必要的寒蝉效应，共同维护加拿大法治、民主、多元包容以及《加拿大权利与自由宪章》所确立的基本价值。

我们也呼吁广大华裔加拿大人积极融入加拿大社会，依法行使公民权利，勇于参与公共事务，珍惜并善用自己的选票，以理性、负责和建设性的方式表达意见。民主社会并不要求每个人永远不会犯错，而是要求公共权力始终受到法治和程序的约束。只有坚持程序公正、尊重表达自由、维护法治精神，才能建立真正包容、互信、多元的社区，让每一位加拿大公民都能够平等、安心地参与公共事务，共同守护加拿大自由民主的核心价值。

AOCC Calls on Richmond City Council to Reconsider and Rescind Its Motion Concerning Yi Liu

The Alliance of Chinese Conservatives (AOCC) is concerned by Richmond City Council's recent decision to adopt a motion condemning the content published by independent media commentator Yi Liu (Jason) following the publication of an article encouraging Chinese Canadian voters to participate in the democratic process, and by the Council's decision to refer the matter to the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

AOCC acknowledges that the AI-generated image accompanying Mr. Liu's article was inappropriate and may have created ambiguity or unintended negative implications for certain candidates and members of the communities concerned. Mr. Liu publicly acknowledged this mistake shortly after concerns were raised and issued an apology to those affected. In a democratic society, individuals should be expected to take responsibility for genuine errors, but they should also be afforded the opportunity to correct them without facing unnecessary escalation once accountability has been accepted.

AOCC is particularly concerned that, before adopting its motion of condemnation, Richmond City Council did not provide Mr. Liu with an opportunity to present his account of the facts, respond to the concerns raised, or offer an explanation. This raises important questions regarding procedural fairness, a well-established principle of Canadian administrative law. When a public authority takes action that may affect an individual's reputation, interests, or legal rights, fairness generally requires that the person concerned be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Respect for procedural fairness strengthens public confidence in public institutions and the integrity of governmental decision-making.

AOCC further notes that whether conduct amounts to discrimination prohibited under the BC Human Rights Code is ultimately a legal determination that falls within the jurisdiction of the appropriate adjudicative body, which must consider the evidence, applicable law, and the circumstances of each case independently. Public bodies should exercise caution when commenting on matters that may become the subject of legal proceedings, so as not to create the appearance of prejudging issues that properly belong before an independent tribunal. Maintaining institutional neutrality helps preserve both public confidence and the independence of the legal process.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression under section 2(b), with political expression receiving particularly strong constitutional protection because of its central importance to democratic participation. While freedom of expression is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law under section 1 of the Charter, any restriction must be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. In circumstances where the primary purpose of an article was to encourage civic participation, and where the author has already publicly acknowledged and apologized for an inappropriate AI-generated image, it is appropriate to ask whether political condemnation and the referral to legal proceedings represent a necessary and proportionate response.

AOCC is concerned that isolated mistakes should not be disproportionately amplified in ways that discourage legitimate civic engagement. A single controversial AI-generated image should not, by itself, overshadow the broader purpose of encouraging democratic participation or diminish the importance of citizens engaging in public affairs. If individuals begin to fear political condemnation for expressing opinions, participating in community dialogue, or encouraging voter participation, there is a risk of creating what Canadian constitutional jurisprudence has described as a "chilling effect" on freedom of expression. Such an outcome would discourage civic participation and would not contribute to greater understanding or trust among Richmond's diverse communities.

AOCC respectfully calls upon Richmond City Council to reconsider and rescind the motion in question, and encourages all parties to approach this matter with fairness, restraint, and respect for due process and the rule of law. Public institutions should strive to protect both equality rights and the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ensuring that responses to controversial speech remain measured, lawful, and proportionate.

Finally, AOCC encourages Chinese Canadians to continue participating actively in Canadian civic life by exercising their democratic rights, engaging in public affairs responsibly, and making their voices heard through lawful and constructive participation. A healthy democracy does not depend on citizens never making mistakes; rather, it depends on public institutions exercising their authority fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the rule of law. By upholding procedural fairness, protecting freedom of expression, and respecting independent legal processes, Canada can continue to foster an inclusive, pluralistic, and democratic society in which all citizens are able to participate with confidence.