分类目录归档:民权

美国百人会关于DHS最新隐私权提案的提议

美国国土安全部(DHS)近日就隐私权法提交了一项新提案(提案名:DHS/ ALL–038,内部威胁项目记录系统;案卷号:DHS-2015-0050)。针对该项提案,美国华裔组织“百人会”发表了相关评论——

“《隐私权法》自颁布实施以来,旨在为了防止政府在收集公民个人信息之后,对其进行误用和滥用。然而,此次DHS在提案中要求——以后但凡涉及“内部威胁项目”,DHS在行动中可享有更多豁免《隐私权法》的限制权。其中包括:对泄露个人隐私不再承担责任、拒绝公民查看访问自己的个人记录、收集并保留与调查无关和不准确的个人信息,并且没有任何通知!

多年以来,百人会一直坚定不移地拥护着法律的贯彻和实施。此次,针对DHS涉及《隐私权法》的提案我们表示担忧:它赋予DHS的执法权限太大了!因此,针对那些在DHS行动中可能会牵涉到的无辜人群,我们需要一套必要的预防和保障机制。

在美国历史上,亚裔一直承受着各种难以想象的歧视,比如《排华法案》。除此之外,在第二次世界大战中,人口普查数据就曾被用来识别、募集和拘捕日裔美国人——虽然这种行为在法律上是被禁止的(http://bit.ly/1OjSHxC)。 近代以来,过分试图去捍卫本土利益的思潮已经渐渐逾越了法律的界限。曾有位华裔联邦承包商遭受带有偏见性的调查,事情水落石出之后,主审此案的法官在最后 审判时不得不为其承受的不公起诉与待遇做出道歉;另一位华裔联邦雇员也因一些不可靠的证据遭遇不当指控,一切亦仅仅因为其出身“有问题”。虽然政府后来撤 销了指控,但这一切已经对她造成了严重的伤害。政府的这些行径不仅仅毁了他们的职业生涯,毁了他们的生活、他们的财务安全,也粉碎了他们的梦想。

今天,数十万计的亚裔美国人作为联邦雇员或承包商,在兢兢业业、引以为荣的为国家做着贡献。然而,美国国土安全部(DHS)基于其立场所提出的这项 提案,却给大量美国公民带来了很大的风险。无辜公民将会因DHS私下的误解、偏见或偏执行为被诬告,他们会受到不公正并具伤害性的调查和起诉,而且无从求 助。

因此百人会建议,美国国土安全部(DHS)的这项提案需要做出修改,至少应满足以下几点:

● 个人应该可以随时提出要求,并且至少可以查看自己安全文件的概要;

● 作为正当程序的一部分,当被调查或被指控时,个人可获准查看自己全部的安全文件;

● 当确认清白后,无关的、不准确的记录必须及时从个人记录中清除;

●  公用的统计概要信息需要对外公布,用以追踪、监测信息收集和使用的态势和动向;

● 建立第三方监测机制,对固有政策及相关做法进行定期审查。”

 

谢谢您对我们这份提议的关注与支持!

by Herman Li

Acting Chair

Download PDF: http://www.pavatar.us/Documents/C-100Comment20160324.pdf

Link to the  Proposed Rule document: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DHS_FRDOC_0001-1439

来自布鲁克林的州众议员 Mr. William Colton针对布鲁克林检察官 3/23 提交给法官的对梁彼得量刑的建议发表的声明

虽然布鲁克林检察官发布的关于量刑的声明没有建议判决Peter Liang入狱而进一步加重对梁彼得的不公,但是这个声明本身并没有更正那个判梁彼得manslaughter的有罪决定。

我很高兴的看到,检察官的这份声明与他的手下在法庭最终陈词的自相矛盾之处:检察官在法庭上告诉陪审团,梁彼得在发觉楼梯间有人之后,对准对方的方向主动开枪。而在出具给法庭的证据当中,根本没有任何一个可以用于支持这个严重错误和没有任何根据的结论。这份陈词直接表明检察官把判决向错误的方向引导的意图,法官应该以此为理由批准辩护律师要求法官宣布mistrial的动议。

这份判决梁彼得5年缓刑,6个月家庭监禁和500小时的社区服务的建议,仍然给梁彼得打上被定罪的重犯的烙印。

在这之前,从来没有人在如此缺乏法律和事实依据的基础上被判如此重罪。

这个不公正的定罪基于如此特殊的一个事实:由于NYC房屋管理局的不作为,pink house根本就不是一个安全的,适合人类居住的环境。由于电梯经常无法使用,新入职的警察Peter liang,他的搭档另一位新警员,和无辜的市民Akai Gurley 必须使用楼梯。而这个没有照明漆黑一片的楼梯间一直是臭名昭著的高犯罪发生地。

NYC房屋管理局和警察局一直试图掩盖造成这个悲剧的真正原因:他们自己内部运行机制的失效。房管局转而指责其工作人员,却罔顾这么一个事实:大楼长达几个月没有照明,没有任何一个工人被派过去维修。而警察局则指责提供CPR训练的教官没有给新入职的警察足够的急救训练,且只是许诺以后不会再让两个新警察搭档执行公务。

唯一能体现公正的做法就是撤销有罪指控,或是声明判决错误从而否决指控。任何其他的做法,只是在延续这个不公正和试图替那些失职的政府机构和官员寻找替罪品。

为了防止类似悲剧的发生,政府机构和官员必须更好的服务并保护我们的居民。

寇顿议员的信由@Susan Zhuang 提供
@li zhang 连夜翻译成中文
@Yue Zhang 律师加以修改

检察官提量刑建议 梁彼得无须坐牢

前华裔警官梁彼得被布碌仑检方以重罪控诉,且已被陪审团裁定有罪后,该案在23日迎来峰回路转,当天下午布碌仑地区检察官肯·汤普森(Ken Thompson)发出一份声明说,鉴于该案的事实、当事人没有犯罪前科,以及梁彼得对公众安全不会带来任何威胁,因此他认为监禁梁彼得是没有必要的。

为此,汤普森已向主审法官陈丹尼提出量刑建议,即希望判决梁彼得缓刑5年,配带电子镣铐在家监禁6个月,做社区服务500小时。汤普森还说,上述量刑建议是最好的公正,正如他之前所说,该案没有赢家,基于案件的事实与细节,我对该案的判决要求只有正义与公正。

peterliang-da-recommendation

宾州2016大选投票介绍

初选 (General Primary) 04/26/2016登记截止日3/28/2016
大选(General Election) 11/08/2016 登记截止日10/11/2016

一  选民 登记

居住在宾州的年满18周岁美国公民才能投票。 必须登记才能投票。懂英文的朋友可以直接在网上登记:

https://www.pavoterservices.state.pa.us/Pages/VoterRegistrationApplication.aspx

也可以下载登记表, 打印, 填写,然后给您的县(county) 寄去: https://www.pavoterservices.state.pa.us/Pages/VoterRegistrationApplication.aspx#
英文有困难的朋友,可以请人代为填写。
除非需要更改名字,地址或党派,你只需要登记一次。

重要日期

初选 (General Primary) 04/26/2016登记截止日3/28/2016
大选(General Election) 11/08/2016 登记截止日10/11/2016

初选只有登记为民主党或共和党的选民才可以参加。如果你希望你喜欢的候选人能够顺利进入大选,你就应该在3/28日前登记或更改党派, 并参加该党的初选。如果登记参加初选,大选不需要再登记了。

完整的选举日历:http://www.votespa.com/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1212520&parentname=ObjMgr&parentid=27&mode=2

三 参加投票:

1)如果您有任何困难亲自投票,或有理解困难,您可以请求帮助。
如果您预期选举日您因为出差,休假或其它如宗教原因,无法亲自投票, 您可以申请缺席投票(Absentee Ballot), 详细介绍如下:
http://www.votespa.com/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1174088&parentname=ObjMgr&parentid=7&mode=2

2)投票地点:给您的County 打电话,或者在如下网址输入您的地址:
http://www.votespa.com/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1174087&parentname=ObjMgr&parentid=1&mode=2

3)如果这是您的第一次参加投票, 您需要出示批准的有效证件。 批准的有效证件如下:

带照片的证件:

  • Pennsylvania driver’s license or PennDOT ID card (宾州驾照)
  • ID issued by any Commonwealth agency (宾州政府签署的身份证件)
  • ID issued by the U.S. Government (美国政府签署的身份证件)
  • U.S. passport (美国护照)
  • U.S. Armed Forces ID(美国军人证)
  • Student ID (学生证)
  • Employee ID (工作证)

不带照片,但是有您的名字和地址的证件:

  • Confirmation issued by the County Voter Registration Office (县选举办公室的确认证件)
  • Non-photo ID issued by the Commonwealth(宾州政府签署的无照证件)
  • Non-photo ID issued by the U.S. Government (美国政府签署的无照证件)
  • Firearm permit (持枪证)
  • Current utility bill(当前水电账单)
  • Current bank statement (当前银行对帐单)
  • Current paycheck (当前工资单)
  • Government check (政府资票)

 

 

Response to Misintepretation of 220 Rallies in Clara Wang’s Opinions on USA TODAY

Clara Wang’s USA TODAY Article
Clara-


As one of the organizers of the Peter Liang rally in Philadelphia, I have to say I strongly disagree with your overall opinions on those rallies in 43 cities across the nation. As a Chinese American, I hate to tell you I am disappointed that you, a top university educated Asian descendent, unfortunately misconstrued the rallies and our pledges. Furthermore, your article is spreading the wrong messages and bringing more misinterpretation to the general public. I ask you to stop, listen to me, and think again for yourself.

You wrote “both black and white activists misconstrue Asian activists as protesting Liang’s conviction. What they are really protesting is the fact that so many white cops before Liang got away with the same crime scot-free.” You may believe you have possessed the insider’s viewpoints on these protests as an Asian descendent. Unfortunately I have to tell you, you can’t be more wrong! The black and white activists are correct. We are protesting Liang’s conviction. We are protesting the NYPD’s bureaucracy which has created two victims, Gurley and Liang. We intend to stop this bureaucracy further victimizing Liang by over-penalizing him with a conviction disproportional to his misconduct. Based on your article I had to guess you really knew little about the depths and magnitude of these rallies and our pledges. Please spare yourself five minutes to watch some YouTube videos on those rallies. I doubt you would find substances to support your claims. Could you possibly have misjudged your fellow Asian protesters?

You stated people went on protests “wasn’t because the verdict was unjust. They were angry because so many white police officers involved in fatal shootings before him were let off. Liang,” Again, you are wrong! We are protesting because the conviction was unjust! We don’t believe Liang’s conviction of 2nd degree manslaughter fits the facts of a misfired bullet bouncing off a wall and accidentally hitting Mr. Gurley in the dark. More evidences have surfaced with regards to the accidental and tragic nature of Mr Gurley ‘s death, and the political undercurrent of the subsequent conviction. Those new findings have cast serious doubt on various aspects of this conviction including mishandled court hearings. Questions for you, in your idealist mindset, have you ever wondered why a then 26-year old, only several years senior of you, who may not be as privileged to enter a top university, got convicted for reckless 2nd degree manslaughter from a gun accident in NYC, where NO police officers have been convicted in line-of-duty shooting deaths for over a decade? Have you ever wondered why the NY Police Union did not spare him a top attorney, as the Union had previously done in similar incidents, as many other police unions in the country may have done? Have you ever wondered what life and death really meant to two rookie cops while patrolling at night in NYC house projects which at times can be war-zone like, and near where two police officers were killed in execution style in 2014? Have you ever wondered why NYPD had two rookie officers without adequate training patrolling in those highly dangerous areas? Aren’t you suspiciouu?  Had you thought through those facts, I doubt you would have stated “Liang is facing up to 15 years in prison, and rightfully so…for a police officer in a tense situation — especially in New York City — there is no room for panic”.

I trust you would do more research on this tragedy, rethink your opinions, and take corrective actions. If you need info, please contact me at fishswimsallday@gmail.com. I appreciate you have properly acknowledged a few good things of those protests such as breaking away from being the silent minority. Thank you.

AsianCivilRights.org 就梁彼得事件对CAAAV声明的回应

张若楠 (nrzhang@gmail.com), 费城220游行发言人
: 武玮

2016年2月20日,愈十万人的大游行燃遍全美四十余城市,对前纽约警员梁彼得所遭遇的不公审判表达了力度空前的抗议,以及对司法公正的呼唤。回顾整个事件,我们对CAAAV无视事实、不负责任的言论感到非常失望。CAAAV为包括非裔在内的弱势群体服务的宗旨令人敬重,但是在这次事件的处理上,该组织已严重背离了追求平等和公正的初心。

CAAAV的声明中,对案件的基本事实有多处描述错误。梁彼得的无意误射被他们描述为“警察系统故意针对非裔族群的行为”。然而,梁彼得在一片漆黑中受惊而误射,开枪后十分钟左右才发现了被子弹击中的格雷;试问,梁在没看见遇害人的情况下又如何针对其族群?CAAAV还在声明中将这起事故描述为“每天都在上演的执法系统的制度化不公”。梁彼得误射一枚子弹,经墙壁反弹后不幸击中遇害者,与CAAAV所反对的故意暴力执法有着本质的不同。分析这起悲剧的深层原因确实有助于包括CAAAV在内的所有人更深刻地了解执法系统的缺陷,然而简单将梁作为针对的目标却过于不负责任。

如前所言,梁彼得和格雷的这场悲剧确实反映了执法和司法系统的许多深层问题。其一,梁以及其同伴在危险环境中的惊慌及过失,反映出纽约警署没有对年轻警官给予充分培训和指导、就将他们派上了危险的岗位。其二,纽约警署将两个缺乏经验的年轻警员配对、派到全市最危险的社区巡逻,指向了其部署警力方面的制度缺陷。其三,事故发生地为市政府管辖的补贴房,其缺乏足够的照明和安全措施的状态是导致悲剧的重要因素,也说明了市政管理上的失责。如果单纯把矛头指向梁彼得,既是对梁的不公平,也是对真正的暴力执法行为的受害者的不公平。这种避重就轻的做法,将大众的不满情绪和注意力完全转移到惩罚梁一人,却不去追究把他置于此情境、从而酿成悲剧的真正责任部门。

 

我们在折腾什么?

image

Recently, I found myself in a surprising role as the “media spokeswoman” for the Philadelphia 2/20 rally. You may ask how did I stumble into that role, well, I will save the reminiscing for another time. I certainly did not see it coming.

Before this, race was never something that I talked about publicly. In fact, the subject of race is something very personal to me. For example, although I am proud of my heritage I chose not to join any professional organizations with a “Chinese” in its title.   I feel strongly that, as an academic, I should be evaluated and grouped purely by the content of my ideas.  Having grown up in America, I do not remember encountering discrimination.

As a second generation immigrant I felt, and still feel, very comfortable with being yellow in America. It is only the recent events in the news that bothered me on a deep level. Bad things happen in America to all races, but recently they seem to be happening at an increasing frequency to Asian Americans.  There was the witch-hunt that led to the hasty arrest of Sherry Chen last year.  And then of Xiaoxing Xi right here in Philadelphia.  Now, we see this selective prosecution of Peter Liang.  Was I oblivious before, or is this anti-Asian sentiment really gathering steam?

image

So, after this 220 rally for Peter Liang, a group of dedicated volunteers in Philadelphia are riding the momentum to start an Asian civil rights movement. I am proud to say that I am part of this passionate group!  But before I start calling myself an activist, I have to figure out what this is all about.

Why are we doing this? Most second generation Chinese that I know do not seem to be bothered by the recent events.  Many of these ABCs, or American Born Chinese, are also doing very well, through their hard work they are working in stereotypical non-Asian fields such as lawyers, artists, and even politicians. So, this racial “discrimination”, if we may call it that, is it unique to fresh-off-the boat (FOB) Chinese immigrants?

But, Peter Liang was second generation!  Seems we can’t just wait for assimilation to be the solution. Even a second generation local kid gets treated this way. But how much of Liang’s unfair treatment was because of his skin color, and how much of it was because of his remnant fob-ness, his lack of assimilation? If he were an assertive, truly Americanized banana, would he have met the same fate?

image

At the press conference for the 220 rally I was asked the question “Do you think there was discrimination against Liang?” After hesitating, I said, “discrimination is a strong word. In Peter Liang’s case, there was unfair treatment. ”

In the following days, I lost quite a bit of sleep over this question. Was that the right way to answer it? My instinct was that in America people hate it when you play the race card. Or, more accurately, the white majority hate it when you play the race card. But we are playing the race card, why deny it? Yet, if Peter Liang were white, would I still think this outcome is unfair? Absolutely! But I probably wouldn’t feel strong enough to protest it on the streets.

image

So now, for this civil rights movement or whatever it should be called, our main goal is to get Asians to become more socially and politically engaged, to stop being the silent minority.  How should that be achieved? And what role does assimilation play in all of this?

Will political involvement and social engagement come naturally as immigrants find and adjust to their new identity in this adopted country? For me, a second generation schizophrenic Chinese American, identity is an especially illusive concept.  For everyone, finding identity in America must be a personal thing, something that needs to be taken at one’s own pace. If anything, I hope that my involvement in this whole cause can help others find their own voice.

If you have read this far, well, I would really like to hear how you feel. What do you think our efforts are all about?

image