l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 1 方师祖遭威胁报警寻求安全保护
众网友读帖子回应表示关心支持
正必胜斜
首先，衷心感谢众多网友的关心关怀支持保护，兄弟给你们磕头了！
兄弟先叙述报警经过，然后再讲述报警的具体程序。
报警经过：
兄弟昨晚接收电邮后，刚开始没觉得太可怕，但是越想越不对劲，越想越觉得害怕。兄
弟受到的潜在威胁有两个部分：1）人身安全； 2）被起诉。同时，兄弟在精神上受到
极度惊吓，今天因为过度害怕都不敢出门上班，只能报警寻求警方保护。先拨打911，
接线生回答后，兄弟告诉她兄弟受到的安全威胁是来自于昨晚收到的一封邮件，并不是
现场的威胁，接线生让兄弟改打另一个电话号码。兄弟打通后，接线生转给了一个报警
专线，询问了姓名、地址、电话等情况后，让兄弟别出门在家等待警官上门。大约过了
一刻钟左右吧，警官来到我家，先看了昨天兄弟接收的电邮，告诉兄弟那不是立即的威
胁，因为没有白纸黑字地写明到我家干什么，不能立案24小时提供安全保护但建议如果
有生人叫门，没搞清楚来访者身份前不要开门，如果觉得可疑，马上拨打911。接下来
调查威胁性邮件的来龙去脉，兄弟出示了所有网上帖子和邮件往来。警官觉得“捐款事
件”有可疑之处，但她仅是接报警员，没权决定是否当场立案并发给我立案号码，她需
要回警局根据提供的资料由主管决定，让我等待电话通知。大约一个小时后，我接获电
话，通知我fraud部门的主管决定成立专案调查此次捐款事件，派专门警员负责接受举
报和资料并展开调查，让我补充提交想要提交的所有资料。所以，接下来讲述报警的具
体程序。
报警程序：
报警电话：1-613-230-6211
案例号码：2014-109126
Q1：谁可以报警？
A1：严格来讲，任何人觉得可疑都可以报警，但没有捐款的人报警是尽公民的义务，而
捐款人作为直接受害者报警更有力度。举报说明（statement）没有具体的规格和文本
，建议具体写明什么时候看到听到什么后捐了多少金额，后来又看到什么而觉得被欺骗
了，觉得自己成为直接受害人（victim），对整个募捐过程的感想包括因此次募捐活动
而心理遭受伤害；渥太华华人社区的互相信任因此次募捐活动而遭受破坏，对以后可能
真正遇到困难的同胞需要帮助时没有人愿意出手相助；中国人的声誉因此次募捐事件而
遭受损害 …… 等等，都可以写进举报说明。
Q2：怎么举报？
A2a：因为911用于紧急报警呼救，举报募捐事件不是紧急情况，建议大家不要拨打911
占用紧急报警呼救的有限资源而是拨打1-613-230-6211。
A2b：可以个人举报，也可以集体举报。
A2c：可以在家里通过电话举报，等待警官上门接受举报说明和举报材料；也可以携带
举说明和举报报材料到任何警局举报。
Q3：已经立案调查的案例号码是什么？
A3：Ottawa Police的Fraud部门已经成立专案调查此次捐款事件，已经立案调查的案例
号码是：2014-109126。一般情况下，每次举报被接受警局决定立案后警局都会给举报
者发一个案例号码。因为此次举报的属于同一事件，警局建议使用已经立案调查的这个
案例号码（case number），便于统一收集归类处理举报资料统一进行调查。警局建议
举报此次募捐事件时引用（reference)这个案例号码。
Q4：除了举报说明，还需要什么资料？
A4a：多多益善！募捐组织者的联系方式包括姓名、地址、电话号码及工作单位等，越
详细越方便警察调查。
A4b：网站comefromchina.com (CFC) 的拥有者管理者的姓名、办公地点及联系方等，
越详细越方便警察调查。
A4c：CFC删除了什么由CFC自己公布的公告及回应帖子，如有的网友留底备案或者载图
都行，直接作为举报附件，不要给网络链接增加警方调查的工作量。
A4d：CFC发布的所有公告、通知及回帖载图，直接写到材料里，不要给网络链接增加警
方调查的工作量。
A4d：谁用什么具体的ID贴了什么帖子被CFC删除，如有的网友留底备案或者载图都行，
直接作为举报附件，不要给网络链接增加警方调查的工作量。
A4e：谁的什么具体ID、IP被CFC封禁
A4f: 募捐受益人的财政状况如难者工作情况及工作单位提供的人寿保险、遗孀的工作
情况、住宅状况等任何有关的财政信息。
Q5：还可以举报什么别的内容吗？
A5：Ottawa Police的Fraud部门只负责募捐事件的举报和调查，别的比如CFC是否践踏
了言论自由、身为公务员的募款组织者是否违反了公务员行为准则，Ottawa Police的
Fraud部门不接受这些举报和调查，质疑者可以向有关负责的具体部门举报，比如the
CRTC，The Ethics Commissioner of the Parliament, The Ethics Committee of the
Treasury Board, the ethics committees of various federal government
departments (e.g., CRA, PWGSC), the human resources and personnel
departments of various federal government departments.
Q6：警方调查后还有什么后续行动？
A6：警方调查后判断决定募捐活动的性质，然后决定是否由警方提出刑事公诉。但是，
捐款受害人可以通过法庭提出个人或集体民事诉讼(individual/class-action civil
lawsuit)，诉讼对象由诉讼者决定，比如募捐组织者及CFC。公诉或者民事诉讼是两个
独立的司法程序，两者之间没有矛盾和对立，可以同时进行。
以上是兄弟在极度惊慌的情况下凭借记忆根据与警官的当面或电话对话而能想起来的。
有任何错处如错字别字等，请网友们跟帖斧正；网友们如有什么不明白的地方或者别的
补充问题，敬请跟帖提问，兄弟尽可能回答。
多谢大家的关心关怀支持爱护保护！
本主题由 中文网 于 2014-5-12 09:39 删除回复
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
讨贼檄文•一：诈捐门“豪言壮举”网友问答谎言怒斥调...
本帖最后由 方舟子的师祖 于 2014-5-7 10:36 编辑
号角嘟嘟嘟声声撼天召秃笔脱帽不可沽名学霸王锋不藏拙锐指牛鬼尽书钢铁事实反正群
魔诸乱
鼓点咚咚咚擂擂动地摧义士出山宜将剩勇追穷寇势如破竹气镇蛇鼠彻揪利益集团戳穿鬼
魅伎俩
中华清誉得之不易岂容陪葬言论自由与生俱来难忍践踏
讨贼檄文·一
诈捐门“豪言壮举”网友问答谎言怒斥调侃对联选编
公元两千又一十四年（明国一百零三年）三月一十九日，刘氏越君，神州帝都人
士，先就读哈里法克斯市达尔豪西大学几年得IT学位，后迁居加拿大京城渥村数载，就
业于联邦政府国税局，百业尽兴，房车俱备，弃年迈体弱多病父母于不顾，乃携妻儿老
小举家休闲度假于南美洲古巴国。视汹涌澎湃的淘流滚浪为公共泳池私家浴缸，取乐嬉
戏于海滨。无奈，暗流不识君面，巨浪劈头盖脑。水性不佳救仔心切，不幸葬身鱼腹英
年早逝。
遗孀弃尸异国率子返乡。越明日，有邻里故旧数众连夜炮制募捐倡议，编造凄凉
穷相，极尽煽情伎俩，“……父尽最后一口气对子曰：I cannot save you any more（
孩子，老爸再也救不了你了）；刘家没有买旅游保险，平时也没有准备任何人身保险/
按揭保险的事，只有工作单位给员工买的基本保险可用，简直是杯水车薪；救急不救穷
……”，贴于村中中文网站 comefromchina.com(CFC)。CFC“皇上”当道，急于捞取
名利进入“主流社会”，见此机会觉乃天送也，立刻行动，连夜召集朝内重臣后宫佳丽
组织募捐委员会自任主委兼中文媒体发言人（坊间传闻，主委亦刘君故邻胜友）。更有
非黄非白的假洋鬼子（报纸证实亦为刘君故交），野心勃勃，欲参选问政充当渥村侨界
第一名华人国会议员。这不是送上门来的捞取政治资本的大好时机？岂可轻易放过？翻
译捐书兼任英文媒体发言人，联系各大媒体驻外领馆（那口英文呀，写的也好，说的也
罢，实令人不敢怎么恭维也）……
渥村同胞见闻死者家贫，乏资运送遗体返乡安葬，岂可令同胞乡党孤魂野鬼于异
国它地？村中男女老少高矮胖瘦闻噩皆哀声连连叹息绵绵，痛心疾首捶胸顿足，爱心泛
泛善举竞赛。十龄女童馨其所有，断腿“先生”踊跃捐献，贫寒学子解囊襄助，疲惫苦
工节食力赠 …… 捐献者犹如村中赶集争先恐后竞多怕少，经私下亲自赠送上门、支票
、email transfer及Paypal等形式源源不断流入指定募捐账号。不几日，一万、两万、
三万 …… 善款数目远超运尸丧事所需 ……
继之，遗孀及英文媒体发言人示相于中央电视台，噩讯广传，惨状毕露，举国上
下捐献惠赠，气势汹汹益发不可收拾，善意款项自四面八方如潮涌入，猛涨爆增。越数
日，有数众对君家状况了如指掌如数家珍，对募捐行径心生疑惑，布公其实情于短帖间
。原来募书所言全属捏造，看：公婆双双，政府职员，年薪不详，谅难太低；人寿保险
，两载薪金，一笔清付，无须交税；死亡抚恤，不计其数。高尚小区，豪宅一幢，香车
两辆。想：事实铮铮，板上钉钉；洋装金碗，沿街乞讨？如此募书岂非白日梦语，睁眼
说瞎；瞒天过海，欺骗同胞；诈取捐款，玩弄怜悯！质疑声略有所闻，“皇上”凭其网
站第一波删帖炸楼锁版封禁ID、IP，死伤不计其数。
众益怒，身处民主法治国度，如此行径置公众知情权、言论自由及国家王法于何
地？“新手上路”雨后春笋，愤怒声讨彼伏此起，络绎不绝震耳欲聋。“前庭后院”家
事隐私岂容外人嬉戏侃闹，大胆到公然发帖指明“皇上没有穿衣服”，朝内大臣乱棒高
举，第二波删帖炸楼锁版封禁ID、IP浪及全网，ID、IP陪葬者复不计其数。
遗孀公开信出，哀悼竞赛犹似赶集争先恐后，“走好”“节哀”“保重”…… 花
圈烛光挽联络绎不绝，回帖在不足两小时内超过200。细读公开信，天呐，这语文一定
是什么名校的什么中文系什么名教授“亲自”教出来的，搪塞推托随手写来笔走龙蛇，
忽悠伎俩独步渥村空前绝后。然则，前言不答后语，矛盾纰漏百出 …… 质问声讨浪淘
愈高。“皇上”凭其“后院”网站，第三波删帖炸楼锁版封禁ID、IP席卷全网，苍荑满
目哀鸿遍野，惨状难述不堪入目。不才注册才三天的ID及IP未能逃过一劫，不幸被扼杀
在摇篮之中当陪葬品。
弃尸诈捐骗局乎？真相终将大白于光天化日之下！乌云蔽日尚几昼？只手遮天还
几夜？过去时：悲剧！进行时：闹剧！将来时：惨剧？
中华子孙之清名良誉得来极其艰难，岂容陪葬！与生俱来的言论自由神圣不可侵
犯，难忍践踏！
不才未识事主男女诸君，前无故怨后没新恨，被逼出山秃笔脱帽，拙著口诛笔伐
讨贼檄文者三章：《讨贼檄文·一：诈捐门“豪言壮举”网友问答谎言怒斥调侃对联选
编》；《讨贼檄文·二：中英文公开信》；不日内定稿《讨贼檄文·三：诈款门录》。
哀文封笔时拨群魔诸乱以反正，诈局戳穿日归炎黄子孙予清誉。哀哉！逝者如无
边春雨悄悄去；日子似不尽渥河滚滚来。任重道远？关山能越！呜呼。
本主题由 中文网 于 2014-5-12 13:27 删除回复 | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 2 http://www.ottawachinesenet.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=29
本帖最后由 方舟子的师祖 于 2014-4-25 07:28 编辑
1.“豪言壮举”
募捐前（行动联系暗号）：姐，我在!
募捐书：刘越最后一句话是“I can not save you any more”。
网友：是谁听到的，孩子还是Woody？小时候看电影，烈士在闭上双眼前总会摸着
口袋掏出钱，然后跟战友说，“请把我的党费交给组织”。
募捐书：救急不救穷，没有买旅游保险，平时也没有准备任何人身保险/按揭保险的事
，只有工作单位给员工买的基本保险可用，简直是杯水车薪。
网友：如此杯水车薪，那比他们家家境差的人用啥成语形容呢？这笔挺好用的，
咳，用错地方了！
死者岳父看到捐款后发帖抒怀：我得好好地多活10年。
中文媒体发言人：上电视台扩大募捐范围，进入主流社会。
英文媒体发言人：投票是一个自由，可是我不会为了一些谣言传语而丢掉我的尊严和我
对人善心的本质。
英文媒体发言人：When I was speaking with English media, the message was
about helping this family not only for the short term but also in the long
run（Hold on for a second，please, your honour, “the English media”, get
it? This “the”is badly needed here, son！）.
英文媒体发言人：I full-heartedly agree that we need to protect our freedom
of speech. However, an online forum is not a court of law, if there is a
case to be made, then that will have to be made with sufficient evidence in
front of a judge. Otherwise, people should be very careful about posting
online （There are two issues here, your honour, one minor and the other
deadly serious: a)“I full-heartedly ……”？Sorry，yours truly have never
heard or seen it before but have indeed heard and used “wholeheartedly”;
and b) Are you challenging people to take court actions? Be extremely
careful with what you wish for, boy!）.
英文媒体发言人：What I said to the media was based on the information that
the widow had provided me on the day of the interview（But you are a family
friend and taught the young son kung-fu at the age of five and knew the
family long before this donation campaign, see Nepean-Barrhaven News, April
3, 2014!).
英文媒体发言人： I am not aware of any fundraiser whereby the affected
family had to show you their T4s? (Wooooooooooow! Good boy, good job, keep
it up please! Dare you to make a bold statement like this to your campaign
committee. Son: without any doubt, it is due time that you kiss your
political ambitions goodbye for good. For your own and your family's sake,
it is beyond time you burn your mid-night oil, sharpen your pencil, revise
your CV, and labouroursly and tirelessly seek another opportunity of
employment or become self-employed! Email it to me for revision and editing
in case of need and want!)。If your parents have not tought you, let this
uncle humbly offer you three pieces of free yet heart-felt and soul-warming
advices: 1) There is nothing wrong to be dumb (fyi, yours truly are dumb)
but at the bare minimum, try your ultimate best to let people guess about
that rather than opening your mouth to prove it by your very own words. 哦，
想起来了，你会读和写中文，从未谋面的叔叔用乡音给你讲更亲切！2）跟叔叔喝过酒
的人多着去了，上到开国上将和诺贝尔奖金获得者，下至扫地板的大妈和看大门的大爷
，没怎么喝醉的总说自己酒量有限不胜酒力，高喊没喝醉还能喝的一定是已经喝得醉呼
呼的。3）你知道“此地无银三百两，隔壁阿二不曾偷”的典故吗？
募捐委员会：善款用途，20/20/30/30。
募捐委员会：退捐渠道，别无选择（捐出去助运尸办丧事的钱还能退回，并且要“亲自
”申请，自从盘古开天地，第一遭听说，俺孤陋寡闻吗？）。
募捐委员会发言人：请大家给点耐心，有重大决定马上公布(一天过去了，没有任何消
息，几多网民熬夜等待呀！讨论版还是锁着。这语文是体育老师还是洗厕所大妈教的？
前堂数位重臣“后院”三千佳丽都吃干饭去啦？）。
小说《孩子，谁陪你长大？》：同学：Moron, moron! 英文媒体发言人: Pardon,
pardon？
英文媒体发言人：“亲自”发email邀俺友参加追悼会，“应为你很关心这件事情,希望
你能够参加刘越先生追思会 --- 今天下午在Capital Funeral Home, 3700 Prince of
Wales Drive， Ottawa, Ontario. Funeral service to follow from 2:00PM to 3:
00PM。 | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 3 14 08:27 编辑
2. 网友问答
网友一：CFC删帖轰楼锁版封禁ID、IP，侵犯言论自由。
网友二：“我家后院”岂容旁人嬉闹、胡乱爆料“家事隐私”！“皇上没穿衣服”是你
能说得吗？没三呼“万岁”高声称赞“皇上新衣很漂亮”，就该封你ID了。你的ID活到
今天已经是漏网之鱼了。
网友A：这CFC太多“死”字眼了，请大家别死的死的什么的，俺血压高心脏也不好，怕
怕！俺怕“两无两不”四种人：无知者 --- 见过几个；无私者 --- 只听闻未见影；不
要脸者 --- 也见过几个；不要命者 --- 新闻经常报道！
网友B：那请问遇到不要脸的你会怎么修理？
网友A：躲！大多数情况下都躲过了。实在躲不过，那就只好实话实说，指着对方鼻子
义正言辞地连续怒嚎三声，“你不要脸”“你不要脸”“你不要脸”！
网友甲：没捐就不要叽叽歪歪。
网友乙：没捐是因为不上CFC，不然，看到那“I can't save you anymore”诗一般催
人泪下的字眼和“杯水车薪”的穷苦样，一定会掏腰包的，哪怕是只有能力捐一点点；
如果捐了，发现被诈捐也一定会要求转捐。但这远远不是捐没捐的问题也不是家庭私事
的问题了。谁家私事上全国电视台？俺从村里来，村里呀，私事连村委会的高音喇叭都
不能用哟，还想上中央电视台、中央广播电台？那是要后门的。就因为没捐才更理直气
壮地叽叽歪歪，没有直接利益冲突嘛，不然还真会被人骂为了那几个钱（当然，俺敢发
帖就不怕骂！）！一个人、一家人的脸丢得起，全体中国人的脸不能让这样的诈捐行径
当陪葬给丢尽了。几个同事也听闻这事了，人家中文不识，管得了哪家姓吴谁家姓友，
只会说你们中国人（you Chinese）。当年Jeremy Lin打出Linsanity，电梯里听到那夸
声好高兴“you Chinese” 听了好自豪！现在在厕所里听到这“you Chinese”，恨不
得找个窟窿钻进去，窝心得连怎么使劲都憋不出来。
网友一：今天中午我一同事打电话来向我证实捐款门这事，听我吞吞吐吐结结巴巴地讲
不清楚（冤呀，还不是为了“家丑不可外扬”！平时这口英文还是马马虎虎能把事情说
清楚的呀。但这次不扬也得大扬了，自己扬比被别人扬好！赃屁股自己擦是擦让别人擦
就不是擦而是画是涂了！），“Dude：don't take it personally but how dare you
Chinese do this to us?”，电话搁下了。我那堵心呀，两根烟下去了愣是缓不过一口
气来。当时真想告诉他我是南朝鲜人算了，至少还可以拿他们有“孔老二”是从他们那
儿偷渡去中国的谎话来挡一挡，他们不是还说“四大发明”是中国人偷他们吗？NND，
这诈捐跟南朝鲜人的谎话之间，你们说那个更无耻呀？中国人的脸真丢到家了。凭什么
全中国人的脸要给一个休闲度假丧生的人陪葬？？？？？
网友二：那你不会装日本人“无毛，无毛”不就过去了？
网友一：“不义事不干 --- 引用委员会主任语”！东洋倭寇俺不装！俺与东洋狗不共
戴天，您让俺装东洋狗，欲陷俺于不义夫？
网友甲：中国人进主流社会的努力都被这事闹得无影无踪了。中国人以前开餐馆、洗衣
房，经过一段时间的打拚，终于开上宝马奔驶了，现在又变回去成诈捐了，同事说，他
是波兰移民。
网友乙：我们公司今天中饭也在议论这事，看我是中国人才不好意思说“you Chinese
”.
网友丙：可不是嘛，我们同事开口都是“you Chinese” 这“you Chinese”那的。
网友A：这是个好父亲大英雄！
网友B：救孩子，人的天性，鸭子会，老鼠也会，好父亲无疑，大英雄称不上吧？
网友C：死人的事是经常发生的，“中国古时候有个文学家叫做司马迁的说过：“人固
有一死，或重于泰山，或轻于鸿毛。””……
网友D：强烈要求：
1）联合国通过决议，规定3月19日为全球法定带薪假日，全球及空间站停止一切活动
2）全人类停止任何形式的娱乐活动一个月
3）渥太华市政府降半旗一个月
4）安大略省政府降半旗半个月
5）加拿大国会鸣放皇家礼炮二十一响，全体议员起立脱帽默哀7分钟，国会休会一天，
国会山降半旗7天
6）联合国停止办公1天，降半旗3天
7）空间站全体工作人员停食一天
8）全体读者起立脱帽默哀2小时，不许喝水不许上厕所
9）奏《国际歌》
10）全体读者朗诵悼词《为人民服务》节选
…… 人总是要死的，但死的意义有不同。中国古时候有个文学家叫做司马迁的说过：
“人固有一死，或重于泰山，或轻于鸿毛。”…… 因为我们是为人民服务的，所以，
我们如果有缺点，就不怕别人批评指出 …… 我们都是来自五湖四海，为了一个共同的
革命目标，走到一起来了…… 我们的同志在困难的时候，要看到成绩，要看到光明，
要提高我们的勇气 …… 死人的事是经常发生的。但是我们想到人民的利益，想到大多
数人民的痛苦，我们为人民而死，就是死得其所。不过，我们应当尽量地减少那些不必
要的牺牲。我们的干部要关心每一个战士，一切革命队伍的人都要互相关心，互相爱护
，互相帮助 …… 今后我们的队伍里，不管死了谁，不管是炊事员，是战士，只要他是
做过一些有益的工作的，我们都要给他送葬，开追悼会。这要成为一个制度。这个方法
也要介绍 到老百姓那里去。村上的人死了，开个追悼会。用这样的方法，寄托我们的
哀思，使整个人民团结起来。
11）全体读者朗诵《纪念白求恩》节选：
…… 这是什么精神？这是国际主义的精神，这是共产主义的精神，每一个中国共产党
员（“人”) 都要学习这种精神。列宁主义认为：资本主义国家的无产阶级要拥护殖民
地半殖民地人民的解放斗争，殖民地半殖民地的无产阶级要拥护资本主义国家的无产阶
级的 解放斗争，世界革命才能胜利。白求恩同志是实践了这一条列宁主义路线的……
我们要和一切资本主义国家的无产阶级联合起来，要和日本的、英国的、美国的、德
国的、意大利的以及一切资本主义国家的无产阶级联合起来，才能打倒帝国主义，解放
我们的民族和人民，解放世界的民族和人民。这就是我们的国际主义，这就是我们用以
反对狭隘民族主义和狭隘爱国主义的国际主义 ……白求恩同志是个医生（计算机专家
），他以医疗（机）为职业，对技术精益求精……他的医（机）术是很高明的。这对于
一班见异思迁的人，对于一班鄙薄技术 工作以为不足道、以为无出路的人，也是一个
极好的教训……对于他的死，我是很悲痛的……我们大家要学习他毫无自私自利之心（
毫无别的兴趣，只懂照顾家人）的精神……一个人能力有大小，但只要有这点精神，就
是一个高尚的人，一个纯粹的人，一个有道德的人，一个脱离了低级趣味的人，一个有
益于人民的人。 | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 4 本帖最后由 方舟子的师祖 于 2014-4-19 17:11 编辑
3. 谎言怒斥
兄弟在CFC贴的：主事者的退款说明更是令人吃力费解哭笑不得！你们发起募捐时定了
上限定了时限了吗？为什么捐款没有时限但退款定期7天，凭什么？你们的退款公告除
了贴在CFC，还在别的地方公告了吗？请问如果有要退款的人碰巧这7天内有事不能上网
看不到你们的说明该怎么办呢？如果人家不上CFC又或者看不懂中文，你们说怎么办？
刘越治丧委员会公告：刘越遗孀卜凡雁女士将在两位志愿者的陪同下，于四月八日飞往
古巴首都哈瓦那将刘越先生的骨灰亲自迎回加拿大安葬
俺“亲自”问：不“亲自”将骨灰迎回来飞去古巴干什么？用善款再去哈瓦那休
个闲度趟假？俺一天内多次“亲自”上厕所多次“亲自”洗手多次“亲自”吸烟还“亲
自”发不少帖子呢！
刘越治丧委员会公告：在此我们谨对两位志愿者以及为此在外交方面多方努力的其他志
愿者和加拿大领事馆的大力帮助表示衷心的感谢！
俺“亲自”问：去“亲自”领回骨灰要志愿者陪同，去度假时有没有志愿者陪呀
？顾名思义，志愿者去古巴的费用自己掏的腰包，对吗？领回骨灰要加拿大领事馆的大
力帮助，去休闲度假时有没有得到加拿大领事馆的大力帮助呢？
刘越治丧委员会公告：他的亲切、友好、乐观和幽默感染着他的每一个朋友、同事和社
区。
俺“亲自”相信“每一个朋友、同事”是可能的，但“每一个社区”？第一，这
语文真是体育老师教的；第二，总理也没这般本事吧？第三，俺人都不认识，什么时候
被感染了？俺没有被开除出华人社区的呀！ 至少俺没接到主流社会“委员会”的公告。
遗孀感谢信：…… 华人社区和朋友，出于为了刘越遗体或骨灰运输丧事的办理，以及
为帮助我们全家面对今后生活挑战，发起了募捐活动，在短短的几天收到很多捐款。大
家可以在网上看到募捐额。很多朋友告诉我们，他们的捐款不仅是为了丧葬费用，也包
括支持我们全家应对生活挑战和子女教育，我们全家对此表示由衷的感谢。
俺“亲自”问：这是募捐书里说的吗？为什么CFC把募捐书删了但别的文件都置顶？
遗孀感谢信：…… 但是我们也注意到目前关于捐款用途的很多议论。为此郑重声明如
下：如果捐款人认为他们的捐款不是他们的初衷，我们愿意全额退款。退款可通Paypal
和捐款渠道进行。
俺“亲自”问：这退款举动置中华文化于何地？捐出去助运尸的钱可以全额退回
，自从盘古开天地，这是第一次听说，大概是俺孤陋寡闻吧？而且真要退捐转捐的还需
要“亲自”发申请到“委员会”，这不是明显给要退捐转捐的人士难堪吗？
“最近有点烦”CFC报道：截止2014年3月24日下午1点，在活动发布不到28小时之内，
筹款委员会即收到260笔总额达到$37,565 的捐款。单笔最高捐款额达到$1,000。超过
八成的捐款人通过Paypal捐助善款，并没有能够留下只言片语。然而，每一笔捐款都有
一个动人的故事。比如，筹款委员会收到的第五笔善款由一位付款人一次性捐助$3,000
的巨额款项。经事后确认，乃是一位11岁的女孩将她所有的个人储蓄$1,000一次性 捐
出，而女孩的父母也各自捐出$1,000 以支持女儿的善心 …… 不论是捐$20还是$1,000
，不论姓王还是姓张，不论是熟人或是素昧平生，不论是华人还是西人，每一笔捐款都
是一颗挚诚的爱心，每一次点击都是一份平凡的感动。负责整理与确认捐款的Zhang
Lei先生的太太告诉我，张先生在得知那几笔大额捐款竟然来自与刘越素不相识之人的
时候，不由自主地抹着眼眶里不住滴落的泪水。渥太华的2014的这个冬 天，异乎寻常
的寒冷异乎寻常的漫长；然而渥太华的这个冬天，又再次告诉我们这是怎样一个温暖的
城市。
俺“亲自”问：发出这样的报道居心何在？这不是明显暗示同胞们捐赠竞赛吗？
没捐的和捐的少的就是没有善心爱心，对吗？俺踊跃参加捐赠活动组织募捐活动也不是
一次两次了（The United Way每年都搞募捐，单位总需要自愿者参加开会、发表格、收
集汇总上交捐款。说是自愿者，实际上用的是上班时间）。是次募捐活动的组织者们，
你们有几个干过The United Way募捐活动的组织者？），看到这样的报道也是平生第一
次，真够孤陋寡闻的喽！
刘越遗孀卜凡雁女士致全体捐款人的公开信，2014-03-30 发布于CFC
是致全体捐款人的公开信，俺因为早没看到募捐消息没捐但看了这公开信，俺看
了不该看的公开信还在公开信里贴了挽联，侵犯了家事隐私，对不起，抱歉抱歉！
刘越遗孀卜凡雁女士致全体捐款人的公开信：…… 感谢自告奋勇陪我一起到古巴迎接
刘越骨灰的两位志愿者
俺“亲自”问：谁能读出人根本就没去古巴，骨灰根本就没接回渥太华？俺反复
读了5遍也没能读出来。这语文的忽悠水平空前绝后呀，至少俺被忽悠了，还叫朋友到
公开信里致哀！
刘越遗孀卜凡雁女士致全体捐款人的公开信：…… 当我孤身一人失魂落魄带着两个小
孩从古巴回到家，首先想到的是必须将刘越的遗体运送回来，也可以让他的父母见他最
后一面。
俺“亲自”问：既然他父母人在北京，由于身体原因又不能来渥太华，怎么让他
的父母见他最后一面? 竟这样掩耳盗铃！
刘越遗孀卜凡雁女士致全体捐款人的公开信：…… 可是在与古巴方联系后，我们才得
知由于古巴气候条件以及遗体保存和运输方面技术能力所限，将遗体运回加拿大极其困
难。另外即便将遗体运送到加拿大，我不敢想象孩子们看到他们心目中美好的父亲变成
这样会受到怎样的二次打击。同时我的公公婆婆因为身体原因无法来加，也提议将刘越
遗体在当地火化后再将骨灰运回加拿大安葬。
俺“亲自”从公开信里概括遗体就地火化的三个理由：1）古巴气候条件及遗体保
存和运输方面技术能力所限；2）孩子不能遭受第二次打击；3）公公婆婆提议将遗体在
当地火化。搪塞的借口骗得了谁？CFC当时不是有帖子说捐的款足够包专机了吗？火化
的责任竟推到古巴、孩子及公公婆婆身上了，不可思议！渥太华真没人会读中文了？
刘越遗孀卜凡雁女士致全体捐款人的公开信：…… 在进一步和加拿大驻古巴领事馆的
沟通后，我们被告知只能选择在渥太华接收遗体或者骨灰，即便家属去古巴也未必能够
见到刘越遗体，甚至连观看遗体火化的要求也被拒绝。
俺“亲自”问：加拿大驻古巴领事馆告知家属只能选择在渥太华接收遗体或者骨
灰，即便家属去古巴也未必能够见到遗体，甚至连观看遗体火化的要求也被拒绝，是这
样吗？谁拒绝了家属的要求？古巴当局还是加拿大驻古巴领事馆？
刘越遗孀卜凡雁女士致全体捐款人的公开信：…… 感谢Andy帮忙联系加拿大领事馆、
敦促古巴的丧葬代理公司尽快进行遗体火化，并为我们争取可以去古巴迎接骨灰的机会
。 ……
俺“亲自”问：同一封公开信里，一会儿要运遗体回渥太华让他父母见最后一面
，一会儿“敦促古巴的丧葬代理公司尽快进行遗体火化”，这渥太华真没看得懂中文的
人士啦？去古巴迎接骨灰的机会需要争取？去休闲度假的机会是不是也要争取呀？这样
的话也白纸黑字地置顶贴在网上？ 咳！
刘越遗孀卜凡雁女士致全体捐款人的公开信：…… 关于我们目前收到的大笔捐款，我
们考虑会将部分捐款转赠给其他慈善机构，用于帮助那些同样需要帮助的人 ……
俺“亲自”问：“同样”？只有死了人才需要帮助吗？更何况很多家里死了人的
都不向社会募捐养育孩子，哪怕比你们家境况差很多！
网友：募捐组织者出发点是善良的，办不好事是因为没有经验，大家多一点理解包容，
质疑者都没有捐款，冷血、无情、残酷，伤口撒盐，雪上加霜，继续质疑就是破坏华人
社区的团结。
俺“亲自”问：俺从来没有质疑过募捐组织者的出发点是善良的，但是为什么一
开始就编造谎言欺骗大众？谎言的实际行动和善良的出发点有什么必然的联系？不用谎
言，出发点就不善良了？善良的出发点推托不了欺骗大从的事实。没有经验就可以胡来
？大多数杀人犯强奸犯有经验吗？他们能拿“没有经验”当法庭抗辩吗？伤口是谁创的
？雪是谁下的？中国人的集体脸面被当陪葬品而丢光丧尽是谁的责任？言论自由遭受践
踏又是谁的责任？是事件的质疑者还是始作俑者？
募捐委员会主委兼中文媒体发言人：
别乱呼叫我，律师不让我说话。
但是有一点，律师说这件事合情合理合法。
质疑的反质疑的该说的都说过了，再不停的吵还是那几个观点。
给家属时间处理这些事情，对大家身心健康都好。
俺亲自质问：
a. 律师费是谁出的？是私人掏的腰包还是用了募集来的捐赠善款？
b. “律师说这件事合情合理合法”？哪件事？这个涉及的不是一件事呀。是募捐
还是封禁版面封禁ID、IP？募捐合情？谁家死了人举家上全国电视台，全家大小照片清
晰地刊登在报纸上？这样家事隐私法吗？募捐合理？渥太华英年早逝的同胞何止一个？
为什么唯这次CFC倾全力用误导性十足的倡议高调全球募捐？募捐合法？请你高明的律
师熬夜好好地读读有关的法律条文！需要帮忙将有关法律条文翻译成中文吗？
c. “质疑的反质疑的该说的都说过了，再不停的吵还是那几个观点”？反质疑的
除了谩骂还阐述了什么观点？
d. “给家属时间处理这些事情，对大家身心健康都好”？已经利用中国人的文化
传统以“追悼会”之名堵住大众的嘴很长时间了，追悼会开过了，还需要什么时间处理
什么事情？还企图用时间冲淡被蒙骗的大众记忆？关心大家的身心健康起来了？俨然一
副主流社会侨界领袖的模样嘛！需要俺三呼“万岁万岁万万岁”吗？
e. 仅仅是家属的问题吗？凭什么封锁版面封禁ID、IP？大多数质疑者的帖子有任
何“危害国家，推翻政府，暴力色情，人身攻击的言辞”吗？“为何被CFC拥有者全部
封杀、删除，甚至几度强力阻止公众讨论此事(封锁论坛)? 是要掩盖什么?还是害怕什
么? 还是公然无视加拿大言论自由的法律”？
f. 为什么早早删掉募捐倡议书而别的文件置顶？那样做居心何在？又会有什么用
吗？
俺亲自嘘唏：娶妻如斯，得友如斯，雇御用律师（律师的专业管情管理吗？）如
斯！咳，呜呼哀哉！
募捐委员会主委兼中文媒体发言人：善款还在会计师审核中，报税季节找会计师也不容
易。一切顺利的话，下星期所有善款将会交与家属。也同时会公布审核后的数目。在善
款交接之前，请大家耐心等待。是批判还是质疑，要等事情处理完再说也不迟。
网友：善款还没交给家属，哪来的钱办的事啊？是剩余的善款“还在会计师审核中”吧？
募捐委员会主委兼中文媒体发言人：我说的很清楚，全部善款。
俺亲自质问：原来公布的数目没经过会计师的审核？现在又“报税季节”难找会
计师了？报税季节什么时候开始的？如果一切不顺利呢？还耐心等待？全球华人陪葬的
时间还不够吗？华人丢的脸还不够吗？原来没钱运尸，可近一个月时间过去了，全部善
款还在委员会手上，那个公告不是说7天之内交给家属吗？那个公告是啥时候发的，离
现在多少天了？这怎么个救急不救穷法呀？有胆把募捐倡议再贴后院吗？是批判还是质
疑，要等事情处理完再说也不迟？哈哈！ | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 5 本帖最后由 方舟子的师祖 于 2014-4-14 09:53 编辑
4. 调侃对联
渥丽两河冰未水
中文网站锣已鸣
杯水车薪
站主热烈欢迎仁者亲自引路
村长老骥伏枥师祖杯水车薪
委员会 20/20/30/30 别无选择但 no legal insurance
网友甲：CFC删贴封坛易，平息众怒难，且行且善！
网友乙：OCN访者发文少，自由言论多，亦累亦积。
尔添字吾亦添字
网友甲：CFC删贴封坛易，平息众怒难，且行且珍重！
网友乙：OCN访者发文少，自由言论多，亦累亦慢积。
网友A：
二十，二十，杯水
三十，三十，车薪
爱心无极限
网友B和联：
弃尸，诈捐，家事
删帖，轰楼，隐私
村民有质疑
网友B：网友A，俺用烧锅炉师傅教的洋泾浜语文给您改个横批吧：
二十，二十，杯水
三十，三十，车薪
别无选择
俺自己也只好改和联了：
弃尸，诈捐，家事
删帖，轰楼，隐私
尔有后院
古巴滔滔滚滚痛刘兄救子心切英年早逝怒遗孀婪海难填弃尸敛财问家属如此节哀亡者怎
么安息？
渥村唧唧喳喳赞同胞倾囊襄助绵力竞尽斥义工胡乱募捐好心坏事想网民这般被愚公信如
何残存！
先送亡人后理善款
地狱牛头马面捐给未亡人照单全收夜夜相伴
天堂风平浪静祝愿先走者一路走好日日安息
哀贪妇亡魂哀
天堂无风无浪亡灵安息
人间有情有义生者节哀
奠
西域无风无浪刘兄孤单上路走好安息
北京有牵有挂父母年迈体弱保重节哀
悼
若非蛇鼠一窝有何隐私难言为何删帖频频借口盖地？
原本鱼龙混杂自然鬼胎各怀当然封版连连谎话铺天！
见鬼去吧言论自由
曾设想鱼龙混杂各自心怀鬼胎互相瞒天过海谎言弥天欺骗大众
哪料到蛇鼠一窝牛鬼机关算尽鬼魅伎俩使绝诈局盖地愚弄善良
君子之心度小人之腑
据传是刘君父母在追悼会上送的挽联：
黄梅不落青梅落
白发人送黑发人
这联值得深思！怎么解读？见仁见智。凭俺的洋泾浜语文，也读出了点意思但不
好说。还据说追悼会没提及刘君父母和别的亲人，这事……？ | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 6 http://www.ottawachinesenet.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=73
一些email地址 [复制链接]
v**[email protected] --- Andy竞选办公室，Nepean-West保守党议员竞选人
b****[email protected] --- 渥太华西区议员、外交部长（保守党）
t************[email protected] --- 反对党NDP党魁
j************[email protected] --- 自由党党魁
d************[email protected] --- 渥太华南区议员（自由党）
p********[email protected] --- 渥太华中区议员（NDP）
i**[email protected] --- Nepean-West 自由党议员竞选人
a*************[email protected] --- CBC晚间新闻主播
n***************[email protected] --- CTV最早报道捐款的记者
n******[email protected] --- 环球邮报新闻室 | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 7 我们都给各界发发已经准备好的公开信、质疑焦点和事件始末吧。 | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 8 本帖最后由 渥京村民 于 2014-5-4 16:04 编辑
力挺以师祖为首的维护海外华人形象和声誉的质疑者们！
刚刚拜读了渥太华骗捐事件的最新发展和两位"政治领袖"的信
件，十分感叹！同时多谢师祖公开贴出这些信件，使我们能破除迷信，
看到更多的真相。
对小政客，原以为只是年轻幼稚，经验不足，勇气不够。现在看来直接
就是无知，狂妄，完全没有一个未来政治家的胸襟，修养和潜质。居然
对有理有据的质疑者发出那样的信件，水平之低让人跌镜。算了吧！从
政之路似乎与君无缘，还是尽早干点别的什么营生去吧！
对"侨界领袖"，不知道这位老人家是谁？是何方神圣？但从他
参与这一事件过程中体现出来的洞察力，反应能力，表达能力(无论中
文， 英文) 以及心胸，眼界，勇气等等，与这次以师祖为首的质疑者
们相比，相差甚远，甚至都不在一个档次上。 不知这"领袖"之名是怎
么混上去的？谁委任的？难道也是暗箱操作的结果？不要认为
多去过几次使馆就是"侨领"， 那样的话北美的"侨领"可就太多
了。真正的侨领应该以实力说话，以德以理服人。
师祖提的几个问题简明扼要，就那么难以正面，公开地回答吗？除了桌底私下交易之外
老先生一无所会吗？老先生说话的"资深侨领"口气与体现出来的能力，水平，
极不相配，这种情况只会怡笑大方的。
此外(By the way)，golf在北美也就一大众室外活动，没什么可显摆的。别以为这次事
件的质疑者们都是日挣口粮的蚁工。山外有山，人外有人，不要井底之蛙而夜郎自大，
整天称皇道帝，让人耻笑。如果就这点水平，实在有辱"侨领"二字，还是"回家
带孙子"去吧！
对"侨领"在信中提到的其他几位参与或支持这次募捐/治丧委员会的各种"主席
们"，不客气地说，他们的个人眼光，应事能力和担当勇气在这次事件中已显露无遗，
中国那几所名牌大学及其广大校友们的脸面都让他们丢尽了。 赶快辞职吧！别再出来
丢人现眼，损害校友们的声誉了。
客观地说，这个事件一开始就错了，如果有点胸怀，有点担当，早点出来认个错，大家
也就原谅了，不致于发展到这一步，造成如此恶劣影响。
渥京村民 | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 9 http://www.ottawachinesenet.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=60
onlyword 发表于 2014-4-29 10:40
我觉得这次事件的真正罪魁祸首是 CXC
1 滥用了广大村民对其的信任，如果不是为募捐背书，谁知道ANDY是谁呀，开始时先是
冻结募捐的帖子，等待调查，结论是一切真实，开始摇旗呐喊，为募捐打开绿色通道，
俨然以华人领袖的感觉出现。不可否认其部分原因是为慈善，但更多是功利，为自己的
领袖地位和宣传网站。
基于第一点，在操作上
2. 好大喜功，从组织捐助，上公告媒体到治丧委员会，也不知家属给的授权在哪里？
范围？
要知道权利与责任是紧密联系的，只想到了权，而忘了还要承担整个事件带来的后果。
如果当时家属只是授权你发布募捐书，你也就没有后面那么一大擦不干净的屁股。看看
后来出来多少委员会。
3. 刚愎自用，不懂得听取意见， 在出现问题后对不同声音蛮横无理，是导致双方对立
的根本原因，在他看来只有两种人，一是朋友，那你就要完全拥护我，凡是与我意见不
同的都是敌人。
4. 志大才疏， 如此大的一个事件，从组织到执行无一不是败笔，还自我感觉老大，皇
上。 在出现如此多问题时居然还想什么基金。
5. 不敢承担， 偶尔发出点被冤枉的帖子，转而又变得蛮横无礼，开始时说以后要给大
家一个交代，后来连话题都禁了。一付流氓嘴脸。一会儿说要保护家属，一会儿是禁止
攻击，一会儿是御用律师不让说，一会儿是和气合理合法。
下面的段子 与其有异曲同工这处：
你和他讲道理，他和你耍流氓；你和他耍流氓，他和你讲法制；
你和他讲法制，他和你讲政治；你和他讲政治，他和你讲国情；
你和他讲国情，他和你讲接轨；你和他讲接轨，他和你讲党性；
你和他讲党性，他和你讲文化；你和他讲文化，他和你讲孔子；
你和他讲孔子，他和你讲老子；你和他讲老子，他和你装孙子。 | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 10 本帖最后由 方舟子的师祖 于 2014-4-29 12:33 编辑
onlyword 发表于 2014-4-29 12:12
是呀，我也觉得越来越像黑社会，帮派组织了
贪海难填的难属图钱（不仅弃尸还反复拿孩子当挡箭牌），奸商图网站点击率要当侨界
领袖进入主流社会，嘴边没毛还没成政客的小流氓要捞政治资本，个人怀疑这是利益集
团的团伙集团诈捐。这貌似尸弃诈捐合得是哪家的情哪家的理哪家的法？我村民众实在
是太善良了，可叹可气！ | | | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 11 本帖最后由 方舟子的师祖 于 2014-5-12 14:54 编辑
渥京村民 发表于 2014-5-12 14:27
师祖大智大勇，当世奇才，一点就明。
保护师祖，人人有责，我们都是师祖。
我没有什么大智大勇，只想下半辈子对得起自己良知地活着，因为我是加拿大籍中国人
！我没有背叛自己的良知却愧对了亲朋好友和渥太华中文网。 | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 12 http://www.ottawachinesenet.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=76
Andy给我的最后email
方舟子的师祖 发表于 2014-5-8 12:37
发件人: v**[email protected]
发送时间: 2014年5月1日 18:36:21
收件人: 我的email地址
Hello xxx，
The truth has been repeatedly told to you and you choose not to listen to it
. Mr. Yue Liu is dead and his family is still in mourning, but you choose to
hurt them even more.
What makes you so angry? What makes you believe the whole world cheated
you?
The only reason I can think of is that you are blinded by your own pain and
suffering. You have been feeling hurtful since you were banned from CFC,
and your self-respect was damaged. I can totally imagine that and sympathize
with you. However, you usethe deceased, his family, and the good-willed
volunteers to vent your anger.
One day you will open your heart and realize how pitiful these actions are.
Do you realize that your actions are creating unnecessary drama for others
to watch? You dragged the victims of the tragedy and volunteers to your
drama. And you do not seem to care.
This is my last email to you and I have blocked your email address. Your
behavior has severely affected my personal and professional life. I will
consult my lawyer for further legal advice. If you want to reach me, you
can send me a letter to POBox 44565, Ottawa, ON K2J 0P9. If my lawyer wishes
to contact you for further notice, he will contact you by mail. 在这里藏了
个暗链, 原话是: I found your address through Google.
I pray that you can open your heart as soon as possible and I will always
have good wishes towards you.
God bless you.
Your friend,
Andy | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 13 http://www.ottawachinesenet.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=76
本帖最后由 渥村未名人 于 2014-5-8 09:26 编辑
1）Andy及家属都明确向媒体通报了真实财务状况比如夫妻都是政府工，交谈都超过30
分钟以上，是媒体选择不报道难者经济情况的，误导的责任在媒体。email的原话，“
As well, you misunderstand how the media works here in Canada. We have an
outstanding free press and they are free to report on any story the way they
see fit. Ms. Fanyan Bu and I answered many questions on the day of the
interviews. For example, we toldthe media about the job situations (both of
them are employed with the Fed' Govt), they did not buy any life insurance,
and many other issues were discussed. The interviews lasted approx 30
minutes both on and off camera with CTV and another 30 minutes withCBC. The
actual broadcasts lasted only a few minutes. It is not up to me to decide
what they can or cannot put on air or in print. ”
我们可以要求媒体澄清到底是怎么回事。如果这是事实，为什么CFC从来不在自己发布
的公告里证实？
2）CFC公告3月25日停止主动募捐，Andy作为发言人3月28日接受Nepean-Barrhaven
News采访，这说明什么问题？Andy作为家庭朋友和募捐活动英文媒体发言人在采访时说
记者说运尸体加丧葬费用估计在$3万以上，已经募集$2万，家属经济困难重重。
3）家属在3月30日公开信里明确指出，“在进一步和加拿大驻古巴领事馆的沟通后，我
们被告知只能选择在渥太华接收遗体或者骨灰，即便家属去古巴也未必能够见到刘越遗
体，甚至连观看遗体火化的要求也被拒绝。事发初期，由于要照顾家里有两位年愈古稀
的老人和心灵受重创的孩子，身体本身就十分虚弱的我实在无法抽身飞往古巴。如今在
调整数日之后，我觉得身体条件允许我亲自前往古巴取回刘越骨灰。我感谢自告奋勇愿
意陪同我到古巴迎取刘越骨灰的两位志愿者，也感谢Andy帮忙联系加拿大领事馆、敦促
古巴的丧葬代理公司尽快进行遗体火化，并为我们争取可以去古巴迎接骨灰的机会。希
望我们可以顺利地将刘越骨灰带回渥太华，早日入土为安。”
但Andy的email说，“March 31, 2014: I helped call the Canadian Embassy in
Cuba as a private citizen and helped liaise Ms. Fanyan Bu with the person in
charge of the regional affairs for Canadians who are in Cuba and also
helped with some English email correspondence until Ms. Fanyan Bu traveled
to Cuba to retrieve Mr. Yue Liu's remains”。
这里面漏洞太多了：
a）被告知在3月30日，而Andy以普通公民身份3月31日才跟驻古巴领事馆联系，被告知
在前联系在后，到底谁在撒谎？
b）“即便家属去古巴也未必能够见到刘越遗体”，为什么见不到？是不是尸体早已火
化？
c）“甚至连观看遗体火化的要求也被拒绝”，被谁拒绝了，是加拿大领事馆还是古巴
有关当局？
d）“敦促古巴的丧葬代理公司尽快进行遗体火化”，即时当时尸体没有火化，是不是
早发把尸体火化的通知了？
e）“为我们争取可以去古巴迎接骨灰的机会”，加拿大人到古巴连签证都不要，为什
么去古巴迎接骨灰的机会需要加拿大领事馆争取？
以上是老夫读出来的几点，最关键是尸体到底什么时候火化了或者家属是什么时候发出
火化尸体的通知的。希望大家补充。 | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 14 Jadejoy 发表于 2014-5-8 10:53
b）“即便家属去古巴也未必能够见到刘越遗体”，为什么见不到？是不是尸体早已火
化？
c）“甚至连观看遗体火化的要求也被拒绝”，被谁拒绝了，是加拿大领事馆还是古巴
有关当局？
d）“敦促古巴的丧葬代理公司尽快进行遗体火化”，即时当时尸体没有火化，是不是
早发把尸体火化的通知了？
看到这三句话，我认为遗体这时候已经火化了。这几句话基本是过去时，引伸事情已经
发生了。
首先，存放遗体是要花费的，既然不运遗体，越早火化越好。
如果遗体还在，家属可以呼吁公众帮助实现任何合理要求，比如家属要求去古巴见刘越
遗体，要求亲临火化现场，我相信公众一定百分之百支持家属，尽全力帮家属实现这种
基本的人道要求。全世界的华人都会支持这种要送亡夫最后一程的要求。任何阻拦这种
要求的人，还属于人类吗？加拿大领事馆怎么可以做出这种猪狗不如完全丧失伦理道德
的事？？这样的要求理直气壮，合情合理，会得到任何种族任何机构的支持。
但是，如果遗体已经不存在了，就只能用含蓄的过去时了。所以，那个遗体火化的准确
日期将告诉公众一切。 | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 15 有点怕 发表于 2014-5-4 12:40
欲知“诈捐事件”更多内幕：请加入QQ群：130831371
1、在这里您的个人信息将得到有效的保密。没有人能够看到你的IP地址（除了腾讯公
司）！所以，你可以没有任何顾忌的发表你的观点。
2、这里将实时更新“诈捐事件”的最新进展，披露一些不便于在网站上公开的信息。
| l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 16 本帖最后由 方舟子的师祖 于 2014-5-7 19:14 编辑
我尊重英年早逝的不幸同胞，直到今天我向死者表示沉重的哀悼！向难者家属表示衷心
的慰问！
我之所以成为质疑者是因为募捐组织者的行为让我的良知别无选择！我之所以加入质疑
者的行列是因为我认同他们有良知的高尚行为！！我之所以报警是因为寻求人身安全的
保护！！！
我很愿意尽力帮助所有需要帮助的人士！我很愿意尽力帮助需要帮助的同胞！！我是社
区的一员，也需要同胞们和侨界领袖们帮助！！！不是什么律师说的而是我的良知告诉
我，我成为对疑弃尸诈捐案的质疑者打破沉默的行为举动合情合理合法！！！！
我需要社区领袖们的帮助是多方面的：
1）人身安全需要得到绝对保证，人身威胁需要立即解除！
2）被起诉的威胁恐吓需要立即解除，否则我需要收集应诉材料筹集应诉费用!
3) 受到了极度伤害的精神和心灵需要宽慰！
警察局已经立案发出立案号码了，让法律做判断结论吧。 | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 17 本帖最后由 方舟子的师祖 于 2014-5-6 17:24 编辑
征得Bayer和渥村未名人的同意，兄弟将质疑问题汇编如下，请大家斧正。
There have been a great number of suspicions posted on the online website
comefromchina.com (CFC hereafter) about this fundraising campaign, which
were mostly, if not all, deleted by CFC. What follows summarizes the focal
points of suspicions.
就是次募捐事件CFC上曾经贴出很多质疑帖子，如果不是全部的话，大部分都被CFC删除
了。以下汇编质疑的焦点。
Q1: Is the intended beneficiary of this fundraising covered by insurance?
A1: Yes，both the deceased and widow work for the federal government (the
former for Canada Revenue Agency，CRA，and the latter Public Works and
Government Services Canada，PWGSC). Both are covered by the public service
life insurance. This insurance policy provides death benefits equivalent to
two-year salaries, a lump-sum payment, upon which no personal income taxes
are levied. In addition, The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), provides death
benefits and survivor benefits.
Q1: 是次募款的受益人到底有无保险？
A1: 有，夫妇俩都是联邦政府公务员（CRA和PWGSC）。联邦政府为职员提供人寿保险，
其死亡抚恤金为年薪的两倍，一次付清，不需缴纳个人所得税。另外，加拿大退休金计
划提供短期死亡抚恤金和长期生存者福利。
Q2: Did the fundraising committee propose to change the purpose of
fundraising as described in the call for donations?
A2: Yes. The committee indeed proposed to change the allocation and usage of
the raised fund SEVERAL TIMES over the course of the campaign. For example,
on March 23 when more than $70,000 were raised, they announced the now-
infamous 20-20-30-30 allocation decision. That is, 20% of the collected
funds to be used for body repatriation and funeral-related expenses, 20% to
support Liu Yue's parents in China, and 30% to establish educational funds
for each of the two surviving children. This announcement further spurred
out a huge wave of protests on CFC against this fundraising effort.
Q2：募款委员会是否建议改变开始募捐时候所公布的捐款用途？
A2：是，他们变更了不止一次，历次公布的捐款用途都不一样。比如，3月23日，当善
款超过7万元时，组织者宣布了现在臭名昭著的20-20-30-30善款分配方案，也就是，善
款的20%用于运尸体及丧葬费用，20%用于支持刘越在北京的父母，30%用于为两个孩子
各建立一个教育基金。这个公告再度在CFC上引起了新一轮的激烈辩论，CFC封锁版面禁
止讨论。
Q3: Did the organizers of this fundraising disclose the intended beneficiary
’s financial information when the fundraising campaign was launched at the
get-go?
A3: No. During the entire fundraising process, the general public never
witnessed any formal publication, either by the beneficiary or by the
organizers, on the beneficiary’s financial information to demonstrate that
the family was desperately in need for financial aids. In addition, on the
original call for donations, the organizers used some key words, such as“
the work-provided basic insurance amounts to a drop in a buck”, to
INTENTIONALLY exaggerate the beneficiary's financial difficulties and
mislead the general public.
Q3: 这次捐款组织者是否在刚开始募捐时公之于众了受益人的财政资料?
A3: 没有。组织者或者受益人从未正式公示其财政资料以使公众信服这家的确需要帮助
，因为他们根本就拿不出让人信服受益人需要巨额金援的证明。不仅如此，组织者在募
捐倡议里还蓄意使用如“工作单位的基本保险简直是杯水车薪”等关键词汇明显夸大和
编造此家的经济困境误导捐款人。
Q4: Were the organizers misled by the beneficiary at the very beginning of
this fundraising drive?
A4: No. Most of them are neighbours and/or friends. They very well know
about the family financial situation. Facing a flood of questioning,
negative comments and even protests against this fundraising effort by the
general public in the local Chinese community at CFC, the organizers never
published even a hint of formal supplementary information on the beneficiary
family to justify this fundraising. They did not even provide any
explanation why the organizers were accepting donors' requests for refund.
Moreover, the organizers were taking advantage of their ownership of a
public website (CFC) to delete negative comments and questioning posts. They
even blocked many IDs and IP addresses from visiting and posting on the
website. Furthermore, CFC repeatedly banned any discussions and debates.
Q4: 这次募捐的组织者是否被募捐受益人误导了？
A4: 不是。大部分组织者是邻居和朋友，对那家的财政状况了如指掌如数家珍。面对网
络论坛上排山倒海的质疑，捐款组织者从来没有正式公示关于这家捐款受益人的财政信
息来证明这次募捐的合情合理合法性。组织者从未出具任何正式文件交待为什么后来会
接受允许退款的要求。更有甚者，组织者利用其对公共网站论坛CFC的拥有权进行了长
时间的删除反对意见贴，质疑贴，甚至封禁ID，封IP，致使持反对意见者无法访问该公
共网站，并屡次封锁版面禁止任何讨论。
Q5: Did the donation organizers update the national media (e.g., CBC, CTV,
The Global and Mail) with emerging information, by which the national
fundraising campaign was launched . When they decided to accept refund
requests, did they broadcast that piece of important information on the
national media? Why did they not update the national media in both Chinese
and English? When they announced that the donation drive was stopped, why
were the paypal and bank accounts still open to accept donations?
A5: No, they posted that important note in Chinese on CFC only. They excused
themselves with the paypal and bank accounts remaining open with technical
difficulties. This is a joke! How could the accounts operate perfectly
without any technical glitches when the donation drive was launched yet were
met with technical glitches for several days when the drive was announced
to be stopped? The only logical answers are that they wanted funds to
continue to flow in and they did not want Canadians to know about the refund.
Q5: 募捐组织者有没有在最初接受采访并号召捐款的全国性英语媒体（如CBC，CTV，环
球邮报等），像他们在他们拥有的网站CFC上用中文那样，不断地提供补充信息？为什
么可以接受退款要求的通告仅用中文贴在他们自己拥有的网站CFC上但没有在全国性英
文媒体公布？为什么开始募捐时paypal及银行账户运转正常但宣布募捐停止时paypal及
银行账户继续开着接受捐款，托词是技术故障？
A5: 没有。这简直是开国际玩笑！唯一合乎逻辑的答案是他们想继续让善款涌进账户里
，而不是真想让全国民众知道可以退款，以及企图继续蒙骗不明真相的广大民众。
Q6：Did CFC and the fundraisers verify the financial information of the
family before calling for donations, e.g., work, work-related life insurance
, housing? If yes, where did they disclose that extremely important
information? If no，why not? Does this imply that they intended to mislead
the general public from the very beginning? If this is indeed the case, I
feel this fundraising campaign amounts to a scam and should be reported to
police for investigation and the court for a ruling.
Q6：CFC和募捐组织者在号召捐款前，是否证实过难属的财政状况比如工作情况，工作
单位提供的人寿保险，住宅等？如果有，这些情况在哪里刊登过？如果没有，为什么没
有？这是否说明CFC和募捐组织者一开始就蓄意误导民众？如果属实，个人认为这起募
捐事件构成了诈捐骗局，建议通过法律程序交由警方调查交由法院判决。
Q7：Employing untrue information provided by CFC and the fundraisers, the
national media reports misled the general public nationally and
internationally, such as family financial information, funds collected. Did
CFC and the fundraisers update the national media? If not, why not? Does
this non-update suggest that CFC and the fundraisers attempted to continue
misleading the general public?
Q7：使用CFC及募捐组织者提供的不真实信息如家庭财政状况和已经募集到的款项等，
全国媒体误导了全国全世界不明真相的广大民众，CFC和募捐组织者是否跟进向全国媒
体及时更正不真实的信息？如果没有，为什么没有？这种不及时更正讯息是否说明CFC
及募捐组织者企图继续误导民众？
Q8：Why did CFC biasedly delete posts, e.g., deleting the call for donations
from their own website, deleting reasonable inquiring posts but leaving
alone posts that disrespected and bullied inquiring posters untouched? Why
did CFC repeatedly ban discussions and debates related to the fundraising
campaign? Does this conduct violate freedom of speech and the Charter of
Rights?
Q8：为什么CFC有选择性地删除帖子，比如删除募捐倡议书及理性的质疑帖但没有删除
那些对质疑者不尊重和欺凌的帖子？为什么CFC屡次禁止就募捐事件进行讨论？CFC这种
做法是否践踏了言论自由及宪法赋予的权利？
Q9：Some fundraisers are public servants. Did they use their own time and
resources to organize the donation campaign or abuse work privileges/
taxpayers' money? Did they breach public servants' code of ethics and
conducts?
Q9：一部分募捐组织者是公务员。他们是用私人时间和资源还是滥用办公时间及公共资
源/纳税人公币组织募捐？他们的行为是否违背了公务员道德规范？
Q10：According to CFC updates, collected funds surpassed $37,000 before the
widow and English media spokesman appeared on national TV, which far
exceeded what was needed to repatriate the body back to Ottawa for burial
and funeral-related expenses. Why did the widow and English media spokesman
nonetheless go on to appear on national TV? A good number of good-willed
reasonable posters attempted to convince the fundraisers to give up the idea
of appearing on national TV as they did very much concern that the widow
and kids were still in deep grief and needed privacy. CFC repeatedly replied
that showing up on national TV was conducive to broadening the reach of
donations and entering the main-stream society. I have no idea if CFC
deleted those posts and/or replies. However, based on the attitudes and
posts of the website owners, it is highly suspicious that CFC had been
taking advantage of this incident to achieve personal agenda despite the
fact that the original target of fundraising had been already over-achieved
before the national media reports.
Q10：根据CFC报道，在遗孀及发言人接受全国电视台采访之前, 募集到的款项已经高达
$37,000,远远超出运尸体回渥太华以及办理丧事的需要，为什么还继续接受采访并提供
不真实的财政信息？善心理性的质疑者们反复发帖企图阻止上全国电视台，因为他们极
度关心遗孀和孩子们还处在极度悲痛之中，需要隐私。相反，CFC却多次回帖说上全国
电视台有利扩大募捐范围进入主流社会。不知道CFC是不是把那些回帖删除了。然而，
根据CFC的态度和帖子，我们不能不怀疑CFC的拥有者不理会原募捐目的已经超额完成而
继续利用这次不幸事件达到个人不可告人的目的。
Q11a：The call for donations explicitly stated that funds were emergently
needed to help repatriate the body back to Ottawa for burial and ALL
donations would strictly be used to cover the body repatriation and funeral-
related expenses. Yet, the body was cremated in Cuba. What was the reason（s
） why the body was not transported back home after donations were collected
?
Q11a:募捐倡议明确无误地说明捐款是救急，帮助运送尸体回渥太华，所有善款用于运
尸体及丧葬费用。事实是，尸体没有运回来而是在古巴火化。为什么善款募集了但尸体
没有运回来？
Q11b: The widow's open letter (issued on March 30）stated that the family
was told by the Canadian Consulate General that the family's request to be
at the sight of cremation was declined. Who declined such a request，the
Canadian Consulate General or Cuban authorities? Yet, Andy's email clearly
stated that he contacted the Canadian consular office on March 31 as a
private citizen. How could the family be told of the request denial before
Andy made the contact? What a lie!
Q11b：遗孀3月30日公开信说明被加拿大驻古巴总领事馆告知家属到火化场的要求被拒
绝？是谁拒绝了这样的要求，加拿大总领事馆还是古巴有关当局？Andy在邮件里说明他
3月31日以私人身份与加拿大总领事馆联系。世界上有先被告知后联系的事情？简直是
弥天大谎！
Q12：The Nepean-Barrhaven News was published on April 3 and Andy said he was
interviewed on March 26. How long was the time lag here? Did Andy attempt
to correct any mis-information there? The answer is a clear no, as the
newspaper still quoted Andy as saying that $30,000 were estimated to be
needed for body repatriation and funeral-related costs，and the family was
still under difficult financial stress (note: at the time of interview, CFC
reported that raised donations were approaching $90,000). Why did CFC and
the fundraisers not even attempt to correct obvious misleading information?
The only logical answer is they attempted to continuously mislead the
general public.
Q12: The Nepean-Barrhaven News4月3日出版，Andy说他是3月26日接受采访的。这之
间过了多少日子？Andy尝试过纠正不真实的信息吗？答案是明确无误的，没有！报纸依
然说运尸及丧葬费用估计在3万元以上（注：CFC报到说3月26日也就是Andy说他接受报
纸采访时，募集的善款已经接近9万元），家属财政上困难重重。为什么CFC和募捐组织
者没有纠正不真实的误导信息呢？唯一合乎逻辑的答案是CFC和募捐组织者企图继续蒙
骗民众！
In light of the questions raised above, it is not hard to conclude that this
donation campaign should have never taken place in the first place. It is
not reasonable. But it has happened and people involved should be held
accountable. Whether or not it is illegal, we cannot reach that conclusion
and only the court can render such a judgement and ruling.
鉴于以上诸质疑问题，不难得出结论说是次募捐活动不合情不合理。至于合不合法，我
们不能作出判断，只能交由警察和法院作结论。 | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 18 "PSGSC"--- 应改为 PWGSC Public Works and Government Service Canada
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/comm/index-eng.html
这是一个很大的部，国内没有对应的名称，但类似军队的总后勤部。 负责联邦政府的
所有的采购，大楼运行，发工资等花钱事宜。 | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 19 本帖最后由 方舟子的师祖 于 2014-5-3 14:45 编辑
中华清誉得之不易岂容轻易陪葬
言论自由与生俱来神圣不可侵犯
揭露真相拨乱反正
这是两封版本分开的公开信：英文版和中文版。因为需要发送的对象不同，各自都有自
己的标题。为了方便，我才把他们贴在一个楼里。欢迎所有评论建议，不管是同意的还
是反对的，请回帖提出您的评论。除了个别文字外，公开信已经定稿（征求意见稿贴出
很多天了），内容不做修改，否则会没完没了，时间赔不起，请谅解！）
A note to the English version: This open letter is drafted and finalized by
me, one Chinese Canadian. Yet, it represents the very same voice of a great
many Chinese around the globe from the very bottom of their hearts. In
finalizing the open letter, I have indeed taken all comments into
consideration and incorporated as many as possible. I would hereby like to
thank each and every one who opined on this matter either publically or
privately, who shall remain nameless. Please circulate as widely as possible
. Let's all work together to rightfully restore the good Chinese reputation
and labourously defend freedom of speech. Thank you very much!
Chinese Canadians want to know and deserve to be told the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, and so do all Canadians
--- An open letter to all Canadians from Chinese Canadians
“You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and all of the people some of the time,
but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
--- Abraham Lincoln
Highlight
1. There has recently been a large-scale fundraising campaign to help a
family in Ottawa, which suffered a regrettable loss while vacationing in
Cuba (i.e., Mr. Yue Liu was drowned to death while playing with his kids in
the ocean), first in the local Chinese community via the online website
comefromchina.com (CFC hereafter).
2. The fundraising effort was then broadened nationally and internationally
after the widow and family appeared on national TV (e.g., CBC/CTV) and
appeals made in the national print media (e.g., The Globe and Mail).
3. Red flags were raised by a number of CFC posters at the get-go. Comments
were made, and questions asked. CFC repeatedly banned users，discussions，
and debates.
4. Is this fundraising campaigna scam?
5. Is Canadians' freedom of speech violated by CFC?
Background
1. Following the national campaign, donations poured in. As of March 26,
more than 850 people have donated, according to the English-media spokesman,
Andy Wang, “a member of the Liu family’s Centrepointe community and
taught Connor kung-fu at age five” (“Local man drowns in Cuba”, Nepean-
Barrhaven News, April 3, 2014, p. 1).
2. The original call for donations as posted on CFC asked for donations to
help repatriate the body from Cuba back to Ottawa for burial. As stated in
the original call for donations, the family did not purchase any travel/life
/mortgage insurance. “The Canadian consular office indicates it will cost
upwards of $10,000 to send Liu home to Canada to be buried. With the funeral
costs, the Liu family is looking at an estimated $30,000 in expenses.” (
Nepean-Barrhaven News, April 3, 2014, p. 1).
3. According to CFC updates, the national donation drive collected close to
$90,000 before being stopped by the CFC fundraising committee, which posted
a note on the site. That note was posted only on CFC and no other media were
informed. Funds continued to flow in after the drive was announced to be
stopped on CFC only.
4. According to some CFC posts, the couple are both employees of the federal
government with life insurance death benefits worthy of two-year salaries,
which are a lump-sum payment and upon which no income taxes are levied.
Additionally, the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) provides death benefits and
survivor benefits. Moreover, the family owns a house in an upscale
neighbourhood. As such, some CFC posters started to raise red flags about
this nation-wide fundraising effort. Subsequently, a heated debate started
on CFC. CFC decided to repeatedly delete posts that questioned the matter,
ban posters, and ban discussions altogether in the name of protecting the
family privacy.
5. According to CFC, the committee has proposed that 20% of the collected
funds be spent on the repatriation of the body and funeral costs, 20% to
support Liu’s aging parents in Beijing, 30% to establish educational funds
for each of the two children. This proposed donation use was far away from
what was called for in the original call for donations, which was strictly
to help transport Liu’s body back to Ottawa from Cuba.
6. CFC also posted a note stating that those who want their donations back
may do so within 7 days with a request being sent to the committee. Again,
the note was posted only on CFC and no other media were informed.
7. Subsequently, the family posted an open letter on CFC. While thanking all
donors and helping hands, the open letter also reveals that the body would
be cremated in Cuba rather than being repatriated back to Ottawa.
Furthermore, the family was told by the Canadian Consulate General to Cuba
that the family’s request to even being at the sight of cremation was
declined. This open letter caused a tremendous amount of confusions and
anger among CFC posters. Heated debates started again and were once more
shut down by the online website CFC.
8. Consequently, rumours are circulating widely and fast. At the root bottom
of the heated debates and rumours lies a question that begs for an
unambiguous answer, “Is this fundraising campaign a scam”?
What are the pressing issues?
1.“Is this fundraising campaign a scam”? This very question begs for an
unambiguous and no-nonsense answer. Any attempts to dance around it will be
proven fruitless.
2. The widely- and fast-circulating “scam” rumour has badly divided the
local Chinese community and even worse, badly damaged the Chinese reputation
in Ottawa, across the country, and internationally. Due to cultural
differences and language barriers, among others, we Chinese are, more often
than not, collectively referred to by others as “Chinese” rather than each
individually.
3. Has CFC’s repeated banning discussions and debates violated freedom of
speech?
4. Some of the people involved in the fundraising campaign are government
employees. Did they use their private time to get involved or abuse
workplace privileges/taxpayers' money?
Our Demands
We Chinese Canadians want to know and deserve to be told the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, nothing more, nothing less, and so
do all Canadians, such that our good reputation is not collectively tainted
by and associated with even the very remote suspicion and/or possibility of
a scam. As such, we humbly yet openly and resolvedly demand the following:
1. We feel deeply sorry for the family’s loss and continue to openly
express our condolences.
2. Is what the widow said in her open letter (i.e., they were told by the
Canadian Consulate General that the family's request to be at the sight of
cremation was declined) true? If that is indeed the case, that amounts, in
our humble opinion, to a Canadian diplomacy failure and the ultimate insult
on humanity. As such, we Chinese Canadians demand our government to provide
an explanation to all Canadians as we frequently vacate in Cuba.
3. The national media, especially CBC, CTV and the Globe and Mail, which,
after all, misleadingly launched the national donation drive in the first
place, launch a thorough investigation into and report on this matter so
that all Canadians are told the truth and henceforth the good Chinese name
is unambiguously, rightfully, and respectfully cleared and restored.
4. Police authorities launch a thorough investigation into this matter to
ensure that there has been no scam involved, with which the good Chinese
reputation has inevitably been rumoured to be associated.
5. Police authorities and the Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC
) launch a thorough investigation into CFC’s repeated practices of banning
users and discussions and debates to ensure that Canadians’ freedom of
speech is not violated in any public online forum or otherwise.
6. Relevant government departments investigate their employees' involvement
in the fundraising activities to ensure that workplace privileges/taxpayers'
money have not be misused/abused.
Conclusion
This incident and subsequent widely- and fast circulating “scam” rumours
have badly divided the local Chinese community and even worse, badly damaged
the good Chinese reputation locally, nationally, and internationally. We
Chinese Canadians want to know and deserve to be told the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, nothing more, nothing less, and so do all
Canadians. We demand that relevant authorities get this seriously dividing
and damaging matter resolved at your earliest possible convenience. We thank
each and everyone for helping with this matter. We attach some donation-
related contacts that appeared in the call for donations to facilitate
contacting.
Selected donation-related contacts
Wenjuan Song and Lei Zhang, phone: 613-983-8366, Liu’s neighbours and
family friends, the donation call originators
Riven Zhang, phone: 613-225-4526, a CFC fundraising committee member and
Spokesman for the Chinese media
Andy Wang, phone: 613-986-9264, the liaison with Foreign Affairs and the
Canadian Consulate General to Cuba, the writer/translator of the English
call for donations, and Spokesman for the English media
募捐委员会名单：
Wenjuan Song，Lei Zhang夫妇：遇难家庭的长期邻居及好友， 本次募捐发起人，负责
汇集整理所有款项， 然后统一交给遇难家庭。并且不定期公布捐款明细及总额。联系
电话：613-983-8366
Riven Zhang： 负责中文媒体宣传， 募捐活动统筹。联系电话：613-225-4526
Andy Wang：负责联系外交部及加拿大驻古巴领事部，确保遗体运输及善后工作的顺利
进行。负责撰写英文倡议书，联系本地英文媒体采访报道。联系电话：613-986-9264
社区团体和工作单位的现金及支票收集人：
CRA Train Yards building ITB, TSDMB, etc Haiyan Yuan, 613-276-6851
CRA Headquarter office Bo Jiang, 613-304-0268
CRA Fitzgerald Rd Linda qing lin, Su Mintz 613-948-0892
Donation-related documents are found here:
http://ottawachinesenet.com/foru ... amp;_dsign=83dc39dd
More questions and selected media reports are found here:
http://ottawachinesenet.com/foru ... tra=page%3D1&page=2 | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 20 本帖最后由 方舟子的师祖 于 2014-4-20 10:18 编辑
中文版公开信简短的说明：此公开信虽然由我一人执笔起草定稿，但代表的是全球众多
华人发自内心深处的肺腑之言。初稿征集建议过程中，很多华人朋友要么公开回帖要么
私底下给我发站内信息，提了很多建设性建议。定稿时我尽力全盘考量采纳。对你们的
高见，我衷心地感谢，请谅解不在此一一点名了！归还中华清誉、捍卫言论自由，是我
们大家的义务和责任，请大家群策群力，广为发送传贴此公开信，多谢！
加拿大中国人需要知道并且应该被告知真相，全部的真相，没有任何隐瞒的真相！
全体加拿大人也需要知道并且应该被告知真相，全部的真相，没有任何隐瞒的真相！
--- 加拿大中国人致全体加拿大人的公开信
“你可能永久欺骗一些人，
也可能在一定的时间内欺骗所有的人们，
但你不可能永久欺骗所有的人们。”
--- 美国前总统亚伯拉罕•林肯
事件要点
1. 近来，渥太华举行了一个大型募捐筹款活动，旨在帮助遭受了令人十分遗憾的严重
损失的不幸家庭（即全家古巴休闲度假期间，刘越先生在海里与孩子娱乐玩耍时不幸溺
水身亡）。募捐筹款活动首先通过在线网站 comefromchina.com（以下简称CFC ）在华
人社区里举行。
2. 随着刘越遗孀及家属接受全国电视台（如CBC / CTV ）采访，募捐倡议在全国报刊
（如环球邮报）刊登后，该筹款活动范围扩大到了加拿大全国及世界各地。
3. CFC网友一早就对募捐活动提出了质疑，发表了意见，进行了讨论。CFC以保护隐私
为名，多次封索版面禁止质疑、讨论和辩论。
4. 质疑、讨论和辩论的着重焦点在于“这个筹款活动究竟是不是一个骗局”？
5. 由此衍生出另一个严重的问题，“加拿大人的言论自由究竟是不是遭受了CFC践踏”？
事件背景
1. 募捐活动在全国推广后，捐赠纷纷涌入。英文媒体发言人 Andy Wang 在接受当地报
纸采访时指出，截至2014年3月26日，超过850人做了捐赠（见“本地男子在古巴溺水身
亡”，2014年4月3日Nepean-Barrhaven News 头版头条）。
2. 原来张贴在CFC上的募捐倡议书呼吁社区捐款以帮助死者家庭把死者遗体从古巴遣返
渥太华安葬，募捐倡议申诉了死者家庭没有购买任何旅游/人寿/房屋抵押贷款等保险，
工作单位的保险只是“杯水车薪”。“加拿大领事馆表示，将死者遗体从古巴运回渥太
华，成本高达$10,000以上。加上丧葬费，刘家人面对的是估计超过$30,000的开支，困
难重重” （见2014年4月3日Nepean-Barrhaven News 头版头条）。
3. 据CFC的更新报道，筹款委员会收到了来自全世界的善款近$90,000, CFC在其网站张
贴筹款委员会公告，主动停止募捐活动。但由于只在CFC张贴此公告，信息的不对称及
邮件的延迟等因素，筹款委员会继续收到善款，估计总额大大超过已经报的$90,000。
4. 根据一些CFC网友的帖子，这对夫妻均为加拿大联邦政府的雇员，人寿保险死亡赔偿
金是两年的薪水，一次性付款，无须交纳个人所得税。此外，加拿大退休金计划(即CPP
）提供死亡抚恤和遗属津贴。另外，刘家在一个高档社区拥有一所房子。由此，有些
CFC网友开始对这个全国性的筹款活动表示质疑，一场激烈的争论又拉开了序幕。CFC以
保护家庭隐私为由再次反复删除质疑的帖子，封禁网友ID、IP，关闭版面,禁止讨论。
5. 根据CFC公告，筹款委员会提议，募集来的善款20％用于死者遗体运送及殡葬费用，
20％用于支持刘先生在北京年迈体弱多病的父母，30％用来为两个孩子建立各自的教育
基金。这个捐款用途提议与原来的募捐倡议书所说的用途形成了鲜明的对比，相差甚远
。原来的募捐倡议书说是为了帮助难者家庭把死者遗体从古巴运回渥太华安葬。
6. CFC还张贴了公告，指出需要退回捐款的人可以在7天之内将退款要求送往筹款委员
会。此公告仅张贴在CFC上，没有刊登在别的任何媒体上。
7. 随后，家人在CFC张贴了一封公开信。在感谢捐助者和援助人士的同时，表明遗体将
在古巴火化而不是运回渥太华安葬。此外，家属被加拿大驻古巴总领事馆告知，家属到
火化场与遗体告别的要求被拒绝了。这封公开信再次引发了CFC网友们的不解、混乱和
愤怒，新一轮的激烈争论又在CFC上展开了。不久，CFC决定再次关闭版面，停止辩论。
8. 为此，谣传四起，广泛迅速地在坊间流传。激烈的辩论和谣传的根本症结在于一个
需要明确答案的问题，“这次募捐活动是一个诈捐骗局吗？
迫在眉睫亟需解决的问题
1. “这次募捐活动究竟是不是一个诈捐骗局”？这个问题必须明确回答，遮遮掩掩的
粉饰太平不能解决任何问题。
2. “诈捐骗局”传闻铺天盖地，广泛迅速地在坊间流传着，不仅业已导致渥太华华人
社区的严重分裂，更为糟糕的是，中国人的声誉在渥太华当地，在加拿大全国各地，在
国际上都遭受到了严重的损害。请别忘记，由于文化差异和语言障碍等原因，中国人个
体的言行举止往往被笼统地归结为整体“中国人”，而不是每个单独的个体。
3. CFC一再地禁止就这一事件进行讨论和辩论是否践踏了言论自由？
4. 募捐组委会成员有不少政府职员，他们是在私人时间里参与募捐活动还是公器私用
，泛用纳税人的公币？
我们的诉求
我们身处海外的中国人强烈要求知道并且有权力应该被告知真相，全部的真相，没有任
何隐瞒的真相！仅此而已，不多不少。全体加拿大人全世界人也需要知道并且应该被告
知真相，全部的真相，没有任何隐瞒的真相！唯有如此，我们中国人的良好信誉才不会
被集体沾染，不会与哪怕是一丁点的怀疑和诈捐骗局的可能性关联起来。为此，我们发
表这封公开信，鲜卑但公开强烈地提出我们的如下诉求：
1. 我们首先为遇难同胞的不幸英年早逝感到万分痛心，我们公开向死者表示沉痛的哀
悼，向死者家属表示衷心的同情！
2. 家属在公开信里明确指出被加拿大驻古巴总领馆告知家属到火化场与死者遗体告别
的要求被拒绝。这到底是不是真实的？如果事实确实如此，依我们的愚见，这是加拿大
外交的失败也是对人性的终极侮辱。因此，我们强烈要求加拿大政府出面为此作出解释
。加拿大人经常到古巴休闲度假，谁知道会发生什么不幸事故。
3. 全国媒体，尤其是CBC、CTV和环球邮报，毕竟是它们采访了遗孀、刊登了募捐倡议
，发动了全国范围的募捐活动，有责任和义务就此事件进行深入的调查，把事件真相公
诸于光天化日之下，在公众舆论上毫不含糊地归还业已不可避免地受到玷污的中国人美
好的声誉。
4. 警察当局对此事件进行彻底的调查，以确保捐款事件没有涉及任何诈捐骗局，在法
律上毫无疑问地归还业已不可避免地受到玷污的中国人良好的口碑。
5. 警察当局及加拿大广播电视管理局（即CRTC）对CFC反复禁止就此事件讨论和辩论进
行深入彻底的调查，确保加拿大人的言论自由不遭受践踏，不管是在公共网络论坛还是
其它地方。
6. 政府有关部门对其参与募捐活动的职员进行调查，确保纳税人的公币没有遭受泛用。
结论
这起募捐筹款事件及继之而来的广泛快速的坊间“诈捐”传闻业已导致渥太华华人社区
的四分五裂。不仅于此，更为糟糕的是，中国人的良好声誉在渥太华当地，在加拿大全
国各地，在国际上都遭受到了严重的损害。加拿大中国人强烈要求知道并且有权力被告
知真相，全部的真相，没有任何隐瞒的真相！全体加拿大人也需要知道并且应该被告知
真相，全部的真相，没有任何隐瞒的真相！我们中国人得来不易的良好声誉需要在公众
舆论上以及法律上得到因有的毫无疑问的恢复。加拿大人的言论自由需要得到保障和捍
卫！我们强烈要求有关当局尽早对这一具备严重分裂和破坏性事件进行深入彻底的调查
，将真相公诸于光天化日之下，归还中国人得之不易原本良好的口碑和声誉，保障加拿
大人与生俱来神圣不可侵犯的言论自由。我们衷心感谢帮助揭开此事件真相的每一位人
士。为了便于联系和接触，我们附上以下捐款组织者的联系方式。
募捐委员会名单
Wenjuan Song，Lei Zhang夫妇：遇难家庭的长期邻居及好友，本次募捐发起人，负责
汇集整理所有款项，然后统一交给遇难家庭。并且不定期公布捐款明细及总额。联系电
话：613-983-8366
Riven Zhang：负责中文媒体宣传， 募捐活动统筹。联系电话：613-225-4526
Andy Wang：负责联系外交部及加拿大驻古巴领事部，确保遗体运输及善后工作的顺利
进行。负责撰写英文倡议书，联系本地英文媒体采访报道。联系电话：613-986-9264
社区团体和工作单位的现金及支票收集人
CRA Train Yards building ITB, TSDMB, etc Haiyan Yuan, 613-276-6851
CRA Headquarter office Bo Jiang, 613-304-0268
CRA Fitzgerald Rd Linda qing lin, Su Mintz 613-948-0892
募捐的有关文件见以下链接:
http://ottawachinesenet.com/foru ... 3D3&_dsign=83dc39dd
更多的质疑问题及有关媒体的报道见以下链接:
http://ottawachinesenet.com/foru ... tra=page%3D1&page=2 | | | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 21 http://www.ottawachinesenet.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=66
本帖最后由 参你一本 于 2014-5-12 15:52 编辑
Overview
a）The intended beneficiary’s financial situation does not match
information provided by the fundraising committee in its public appeal for
donations, i.e., the intended beneficiary’s financial situation does not
justify the need for A public donation campaign. In order to achieve what
the fundraisers INTENDED to achieve (i.e., scamming a large sum of money out
of the public who don’t know the truth), the fundraisers spoon-fed the
public with fabricated false/misleading financial information.
b) Before the family appeared on national television and print media to
appeal for donations, funds raised already far exceeded what was needed for
repatriating the body and funeral-related costs, i.e., false/misleading
financial information was INTENTIONALLY given to the general public nation-
wide and world-wide.
c) After the campaign was announced by the fundraisers and CFC, paypal and
bank accounts were still open and continued to receive donations.
d) While the donation drive was done nationally, fundraising-stop
announcement was posted only in Chinese on CFC.
e) After a large sum of money was raised, the fundraisers arbitrarily
changed the donation allocation and usage as purported in the call for
donations, “ALL money raised would be strictly used to repatriate the body
and covered funeral-related expenses”. The fundraisers announced a fund
allocation and usage decision: 20% for body repatriation and funeral-related
expenses, 20% to support Mr. Liu Yue's parents, 30% for the two children
each to establish an educational fund.
f) After a large sum of donation was collected, the dead body was cremated
in Cuba instead of being repatriated to Ottawa. The family did not even say
farewell at the crematorium, the excuse given being that the family was
informed by the Canadian Consulate that the family’s request for paying
last respect at cremation was declined, without telling who declined that
request, which was later proven to be a lie.
g) CFC biasedly deleted posts, such as those that questioned the fundraising
initiative, the non-disclosure of truthful financial information. On the
other hand, abusive posts that attacked questioners, often in languages full
of vicious personal attacks and slander, are not deleted.
h) CFC never provided clarification or confirmation of information nor
responded to questioning but repeatedly deleted posts, banned ID, IP and
shut down discussions/debates against the will of the overwhelming majority
of posters.
i) Some of the fundraising organizers are civil servants who may have used
work time and office facility for private purposes, and likely in violation
of public servants’ ethics and values.
Chronology
2014/March/19: Liu Yue drowned while playing in the ocean. His son was saved
by Woody (Robert Wudkevich) from BC. Woody provided email address to widow.
2014/March/20: The widow and children returned to Ottawa.
2014/March/22: In the evening, fundraising solicitation letter was posted on
CFC. It was deleted but reposted two hours later. The letter indicated that
over $10,000 was needed to repatriate the body. The family wanted to bring
home the deceased but had no money to do so. The letter deliberately omitted
the fact that both the victim and his widow were civil servants with very
good government-sponsored life insurances.
The letter purported that:
(a) the Chinese people “aid those in crises but not in poverty”; the
work-provided basic insurance amounted to “a drop in the bucket”;
(b) the couple had no travel/mortgage/life insurance; and
(c) used several other key words to exaggerate the financial difficulties
they were under. Also known as the first proclamation of the victim: "Liu
Yue (“刘悦" ), was later corrected to "Liu Yue" (“刘越”) and Pinyin "Yue
Liu", which presumably referred to the same person.
2014/March/23: CFC published news: CFC had organized a professional team (
including CFC, English media spokesman Andy, 3 employees of CRA with phone
and names, and several Chinese associations, etc.), to launch and promote
fund-raising events on global media. The "Fundraising committee" still did
not mention the fact that the victim and his widow were public servants.
2014/March/24: 1pm: According to CFC updates, the fundraising committee had
received 260 donations totalling $37,565. Highest single donation was $1,000
. The total amount far exceeded what was purported to be needed to
repatriate the deceased body and cover funeral expenses, which were actually
added to the call for donations later.
2014/March/24 4pm: Andy Wang provided the latest news: CTV and CBC were to
interview Mr. Liu’s widow later in the day. Some online forum participants
challenged the appropriateness of the TV interview. CFC organizers replied
repeatedly that the TV stations would strengthen the reach of donation
appeal in the mainstream society, completely revealing the mentality of the
fundraisers who INTENDED to raised “donations without limits”.
2014/March/24: CTV Reporter Natalie Pierosara interviewed the widow Andy
Wang. The Interview was aired on "6 o'clock news" and quoted Wang as saying
that “$20,000 had been raised within 24 hours.” The family also told the
reporter that they did not who Woody was and where he was from.
2014/March/24: First direct online exposure: The victim and his widow were
civil servants with good benefits. The poster hinted at good family
financial conditions and that the fundraiser was suspected to be a scam. The
post was followed by posts of the widow’ exact place of work, work phone
and email address (as these were public information).
2014/March/25 11pm: Due to suspected scam, the forum was boiling with voices
of doubt. CFC for the first time shut down discussions/debates on the topic
.
2014/March/25 11pm: Funds raised reached about $80,000. CFC announcement: no
-longer active fund-raising activities, no more active pursuit of media, but
kept donations account and donations page open; “if you have friends who
want to help Liu Yue’s family, they can continue to donate through these
channels.”
2014/March/26: CFC released the now-infamous 20/20/ 30/30 formula for
donation allocation and usage. The statement caused a greater wave of
criticism.
2014/March/27: CFC announced the suspension of all contributions and
donations page account, but the Paypal account was kept open to accept new
donations.
The widow released a thank-you letter which changed the use of proceeds (to
include funds as consolation to Liu Yue’s parents in in Beijing and two
children’s educational funds). The statement also indicated that “those
who donated but did not intend to donate” could withdraw their donation in
7 days. The note was posted in Chinese and on CFC only.
2014/March/28: Donors posted a refund request and sought explanation/
clarification because they did not agree with how the family had changed
their plans on the use of the funds raised. Heated discussions/debates
followed. Many postings were deleted by CFC. A second round of shut-down of
discussions by CFC.
2014/March/30: Fanyan Bu issued an open letter: “after several days of
adjustment, I now feel my physical condition would allow me to travel to
Cuba to bring home Liu Yue’s ashes. I thank the two volunteers who will be
travelling with me to Cuba to bring home Liu Yue’s ashes. I also thank Andy
for liaising with the Canadian consulate to urge the Cuba funeral agency to
cremate the body expediently and to strive for an opportunity for us to
travel to Cuba to bring home the ashes.” The letter indicated that the
Canadian Consulate had informed the family that their request to pay last
respect to the victim on site of cremation was rejected.
2014/March/31: Heated discussions on CFC: the questioning theme was around a
basic question, “since this much funds have been raised, why not bring the
body home? CFC decided to completely shut down discussions for the third
time.
2014/April/3: Ottawa community s headlined Liu Yue’s death. Andy Wang was
quoted as saying $30,000 was needed to bring the body home and only $20,000
was raised. Wang was also quoted as saying that Woody was unidentified and
that the family was still looking for him.
2014/April/7: Liu Yue Funeral Organizing Committee announced: Liu Yue’s
widow Fanyan Bu, accompanied by two volunteers, was to travel to Havana,
Cuba on April 8 to bring Liu Yue’s ashes home for the funeral. First and
only confirmation that Liu Yue worked at CRA.
2014/April/12: Mr. Liu Yue’s memorial service.
2014/April/13: After the memorial service, discussions resumed on CFC, but
people spoke cautiously, being afraid that postings would be deleted and ID
’s banned.
2014/April/21: the widow released a letter thank-you letter, a donation
management team was announced to have been established which issued a draft
donation management processing.
2014/April/22: CFC announced the donation totalling "$ 104,050" was handed
to the “donation management team”. The Liu Yue fundraising committee was
announced to be dissolved. Any discussions related to the donation campaign
were banned indefinitely.
2014/May/02: The Fraud Unit of the Ottawa Police Force established a case
to investigate the donation campaign. The case number is 2014-109126; The
phone number to report a suspicion is 1-613-230-6211.
2014/May/05: Riven of CFC announced the Final Solution to the Yue Liu
Donation Campaign proposed by the Chinese Community Association of Ottawa (
English only, no Chinese version).
中文版
概要
a）募捐倡议书与家庭实际经济状况不符，向公众提示了误导性的不真实信息。
b）在家属上全国电视台和全国报刊媒体募捐之前，募集到的善款已经远远超过运回尸
体和办理丧葬的费用；全国媒体用误导性的信息误导不明真相的全国全世界广大民众。
c）宣布停止募捐后，账户依然开着，继续接收捐款。
d）停止募捐的公告仅仅用中文贴于CFC。
e）善款大量募集到后，中途任意改变善款用途，建议20%用于丧葬费用，20%用于支持
刘越先生的父母，30%用于为两个孩子各建立一个教育基金。
f）尸体在古巴火化而不是运会渥太华，家属没有到火化场向遗体告别，托词是被加拿
大领事馆告知家属到火化场的要求被拒绝。
g）CFC有选择性地删除帖子，比如募捐倡议和质疑帖子，但是充满恶毒语言进行诬蔑谩
骂人身攻击的帖子没有被删除。
h）CFC对质疑声音不是做正面证实或澄清，而是屡次删帖炸楼锁版封禁ID、IP禁止讨论。
i）募捐组织者有一部分是公务员，有公器私用、违反公务员道德规范之嫌疑。
详细时间表
2014/March/19 下午，刘越遇难。
2014/March/20 卜凡雁及孩子回到渥太华。
2014/March/22 晚上，募捐文告发布到CFC。曾经短暂被CFC删除，2小时后重新登出。
募捐文告表明遗体转运费是1万多加元，家属想运遗体但是没钱的状况。文告刻意回避
了事主是双公务员家庭，有良好的政府生命保险的事实；文告中着重提到：“救急不救
穷”“杯水车薪”“没有旅游保险”“只有单位基本的生命保险”等几个关键 词。另
外首份文告遇难者名为：“刘悦”，后期改为“刘越”及拼音“Yue Liu”，该是一个
人。
2014/March/23 CFC发布消息：由CFC组织专业团队（专业团对指包括CFC、英文媒体发
言人Andy、3名加拿大联邦税局的联系人电话和姓名、几份华人的社团等），全面推动
募捐事件向全球媒体。“募捐委员会”依然未表明遇难着的公务员的身份。
2014/March/24 1pm 筹款委员已收到260笔总额达到$37,565 的捐款。单笔最高捐款额
达到$1,000， 已经远超运回尸体的需要；即使是后来加上的丧葬费用， 也远远超过了。
2014/March/24 4pm Andy Wang提供的最新消息：CTV和CBC当天晚些时候将对刘越先生
的遗孀卜凡雁进行专访。有网友指出这样上电视台不合适，CFC组织者反复回帖说上电
视台 有助于扩大捐款范围进如主流社会。募捐者想“募捐金额无上限”的心态完全表
露。
2014/March/24 ＣＴＶ记者NataliePierosara 对刘越的遗孀卜凡雁进行了现场采访，
并在《晚间6点新闻》里播出。
2014/March/24 网上第一次直接披露：遇难者夫妻皆为政府公务员，福利很好，暗示募
捐者家庭环境良好，有骗捐的嫌疑。网上连接被帖出：卜凡雁的联邦政府雇员的工作部
门、电话等网络连接（联邦政府的雇员，所有人办公电话是公开的）。
2014/March/25 11pm 因有骗捐嫌疑，质疑声鼎沸，CFC第一次封闭论坛主题禁止讨论。
2014/March/25 11pm 募捐金额在8万左右。CFC发布公告：不再进行主动募捐活动，不
再进行主动媒体宣传，但是保留捐款账号和捐款页面，如果有朋友在生活上想继续支持
刘越的家属，仍然可以通过这些途径捐款。
2014/March/26 CFC的Riven发布20%、20%、30%、30%的善款使用方向的声明。该声明引
起更大的质疑声。
2014/March/27 CFC的Riven宣布暂停所有捐款账号和捐款页面、Paypal 停止接受新的
捐款。
2014/March/27 卜凡燕发布感谢信改变款项用途（安慰刘越在北京的父母及给两名小孩
的教育基金），声明如果捐款者如不认同可以退款的声明，退款以7日内提出为限。原
话： “出于为了刘越遗体或骨灰运输丧事的办理，以及为帮助我们全家面对今后生活
挑战，发起了募捐活动。 ”
2014/March/28 有捐款者发帖要求退款并阐明理由（不同意家属改变捐款用途），引起
热烈讨论，数小时后帖子被CFC删除，CFC第二次关闭论坛。
2014/March/30 卜凡燕发布公开信：“如今在调整数日之后，我觉得身体条件允许我亲
自前往古巴取回刘越骨灰。我感谢自告奋勇愿意陪同我到古巴迎取刘越骨灰的两位志愿
者，也 感谢Andy帮忙联系加拿大领事馆、敦促古巴的丧葬代理公司尽快进行遗体火化
，并为我们争取可以去古巴迎接骨灰的机会”。被加拿大驻古巴领事馆告知：家属 到
火化现场与遗体告别的要求被拒绝。
2014/March/31 热烈讨论：钱够了，未啥遗体不运了？CFC第三次关闭论坛。
2014/April/08 刘越治丧委员会发布：刘越遗孀卜凡雁女士将在两位志愿者的陪同下，
于四月八日飞往古巴首都哈瓦那将刘越先生的骨灰亲自迎回加拿大安葬。
2014/April/12 刘越先生追思会。
2014/April/13 追思会后，CFC上逐步恢复讨论，但大家发言谨慎，怕被删贴。
2014/April/21 卜凡雁发布感谢信，刘越善款处理小组成立，公布善款处理草案（第二
稿）。
2014/April/22 CFC宣布募捐收入“$104050”、 善款交由善款处理小组处理，刘越募
捐委员会解散，并发通知禁止一切关于捐款的讨论，直到善款处理完毕。
2014/May 2 有人报警并将报警过程在OCN 网上公开.
2014/May 5, CFC 发布薛金生代表 Chinese Community Association of Ottawa 英文
公告. 公告称捐款人将收到邮件选择捐款处理方法. (1) 转捐慈善但不给退税凭证 (经
证实此信息可能不属实); (2) 退款给捐款人; (3) 留给刘越遗孀自行处理.
2014/May 6-7 捐款人陆续收到邮件. 由于邮件内容与公告有悖, 论坛上再次质疑声起
, 高达近1000个帖子. 该帖被CFC删除. | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 23 http://www.ottawachinesenet.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=84
Possible key leads to proof of the suspected scam motives
本帖最后由 方舟子的师祖 于 2014-5-15 13:04 编辑
What follows is an English translation from the post in Chinese by“渥村未名
人”（I have his permission to do so). Please use the English version if
there are errors/inaccuracies.
以下是山人从“渥村未名人”中文帖子翻译的英文(我有他的授权），题目是山人加的
。如果翻译有错漏，以英文版为准。
Highlight
a) Deducting from a series of inconsistencies in CFC's announcements, the
widow's open letter, and Andy's emails, it is suspicious that the body was
cremated or the Cuban crematorium was informed of the family's decision to
cremate the body before March 30. Yet, body repatriation was the main reason
the fundraisers persistently used to appeal for donations and/or defend the
fundraising campaign in their ownannouncements. They were talking about
body repatriation up until April 3.
b) Andy claimed that the widow and he disclosed truthful information to the
national media. It was up to the media to decide what information to or not
to disclose to their audiance/readership. Therefore, the misleading
responsibility rests with the media.
c) Active fundraising activities were officially announced on CFC to be
ceased by March 25.There are two issues involved here:
1) Was this official announcement released to the media whereby the
nation-wide and world-wide fundraising drive was launched?
2) Family friend and the English media spokesman, Andy Wang, was
interviewed by the Nepean-Barrhaven News on March 28, and the paper was
published on April 3. In the newspaper report, Andy was quoted as saying
that body repatriation and funeral-related costs were estimated to be over $
30,000 and the donation campaign received around $20,000.The family now
faces difficult financial challenges.
d) In the open letter to donors on March 30, the widow claimed that the
family was told by the Canadian Consulate of a series of things (see below
for details) but Andy claimed he made the first-ever contact with the
Embassy as a private citizen on March 31.
Details
1) In his email, Andy made it very clear that the widow and he have made it
clear to the media about the family’s true financial conditions such as
that the couples were government employees and that they did not buy any
life insurance. They talked to the media for over 30 minutes. It were the
media that chose not to fully disclose the truthful information. This is to
imply that the misleading responsibility rests with the media. To quote Andy
’s very own words, "As well, you misunderstand how the media works here in
Canada. We have an outstanding free press and they are free to report on any
story the way see fit. Ms Fanyan Bu and I answered many questions on the
day of the interview. For example, we told the media about the job
situations (both of them are employed with the Fed 'Govt), they did not buy
any life insurance, and many other issues were discussed. The interviews
lasted approx 30 minutes both on and off camera with CTV and another 30
minutes with CBC. The actual broadcasts lasted only a few minutes. It is not
up to me to decide what they can or cannot put on air or in print."
2) CFC announced on March 25 to stop active fundraising activities. Yet,
Andy as a family friend and spokesman was interviewed on March 28 by the
Nepean-Barrhaven News and the paper was published on April 3. As a family
friend and the fundraising English media spokesman, Andy was quoted as
saying that body repatriation and funeral-related expenses were estimated to
be over $30,000 and the fundraisers have collected around $20,000. The
family now faces difficult financial challenges. The amount of donations
Andy mentioned was far below CFC updates.
3) The widow said in the March 30 open letter (I could not find an English
version, so I took the task of translating into English. I am responsible
for any errors and/or inaccuracies), “After further communications with the
Canadian Consulate in Cuba, we are told to receive either the body or ashes
in Ottawa. Further, even if family members go to Cuba, we may not be able
to see the body. Furthermore, our request to watch the cremation was also
rejected.…… I would wish to thank two volunteers to accompany me to Cuba
to receive Yue Liu’s ashes. I would also wish to thank Andy for his help
for contacting the Canadian Consulate, urging the Cuban cremation agency to
cremate the body as soon as possible, creating the opportunity for us to go
to Cuba to retrieve the ashes. ……”.
Yet, Andy 's email unambiguously stated, “March 31, 2014: I helped call the
Canadian Embassy in Cuba as a private citizen and helped liaise Ms. Fanyan
Bu with the person in charge of the regional affairs for Canadians who are
in Cuba and also helped with some English email correspondence until Ms.
Fanyan Bu traveled to Cuba to retrieve Mr. Yue Liu's remains”.
There are too many outrageous inconsistencies involved here:
a) The family was told on March 30 yet Andy made the first-ever private-
citizen contact on March 31. How in the world could the family be told a day
before Andy made the initial contact with the Embassy?
b) “Even if family members go to Cuba, they may not be able to see the body
”.One can’t help but wonder why not? The only logical answer one can
deduct is that the body was already cremated or the family has informed the
crematorium with the decision to cremate before March 30.
c) “Our request to watch the cremation was also rejected”. Who rejected
that request, the Canadian Consulate or Cuban authorities?
d) “Urging the Cuban cremation agency to cremate the body as soon
aspossible”. One can’t help but ask even if the body was not cremated
before March 30, has the family informed the crematorium with the decision
to cremate before March 30?
e) “Creating the opportunity for us to go to Cuba to receive the ashes”.
What is exactly going on here? A visa is not even required of Canadians to
travel to Cuba, how come the family needed the Canadian Embassy to fight for
the opportunity to go to Cuba and retrieve the ashes? | l**s
发帖数: 20567 | 24 http://www.ottawachinesenet.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=84
可能证明貌似诈骗动机的重要线索
本帖最后由 方舟子的师祖 于 2014-5-14 09:09 编辑
要点
一） CFC发布的诸公告，遗孀3月30日致捐赠者的公开信，以及Andy发给我的电
子邮件等之间，存在着一系列的互相矛盾和漏洞。这一系列的互相矛盾和漏洞不能不令
人怀疑在3月30日前，遗体已经火化或古巴火葬场已经获悉家人火化遗体的决定。然而
，没钱运遗体回来是募捐组织者一再坚持使用的募捐理由。他们直到4月3日还把这个理
由刊登在报纸上。
二） Andy声称，遗孀和他都向全国媒体完全披露了真实信息。媒体决定向观众/
读者披露或不披露哪些信息，他管不了。因此，误导责任在媒体。
三） CFC 3月25日发布公告，停止主动募捐活动。这里面存在两个问题：
1 ）这是募捐组织发布的正式公告，有没有发往全国性媒体？毕竟，全国性、全
球性的募捐活动是媒体宣传后发动的。
2 ）家庭朋友和英文媒体发言人Andy 3月28日接受Nepean-Barrhaven News采访，
这个报纸4月3日发行。报纸引用Andy的话说，遗体遣返和丧葬费用估计在$30,000之上
，募捐活动已经筹集到$20,000。难者家庭经济困难重重。
四） 在3月30日致捐助者的公开信里，遗孀声称家人被加拿大领事馆告知一系列
事情（详见下文），但Andy声称他在3月31日以私人公民身份第一次与使馆联系。
详情
1）Andy声称，家属和他都明确向媒体通报了真实财务状况比如夫妻都是政府工，没有
购买人手保险等，交谈都超过30分钟以上，是媒体选择不报道难者经济情况的，误导的
责任在媒体。 引Andy email的原话，“As well, you misunderstand how the media
works here in Canada. We have an outstanding free press and they are free to
report on any story the way they see fit. Ms. Fanyan Bu and I answered many
questions on the day of the interviews. For example, we told the media
about the job situations (both of them are employed with the Fed' Govt),
they did not buy any life insurance, and many other issues were discussed.
The interviews lasted approx 30 minutes both on and off camera with CTV and
another 30 minutes with CBC. The actual broadcasts lasted only a few minutes
. It is not up to me to decide what they can or cannot put on air or in
print.”
2）CFC公告3月25日停止主动募捐，Andy作为发言人3月28日接受Nepean-Barrhaven
News采访。主动募捐并没有停止。Andy作为家庭朋友和募捐活动英文媒体发言人在采访
时对记者说运尸体加丧葬费用估计在$3万以上，已经募集到$2万，家属经济困难重重。
3）家属在3月30日公开信里明确指出，“在进一步和加拿大驻古巴领事馆的沟通后，我
们被告知只能选择在渥太华接收遗体或者骨灰，即便家属去古巴也未必能够见到刘越遗
体，甚至连观看遗体火化的要求也被拒绝。事发初期，由于要照顾家里有两位年愈古稀
的老人和心灵受重创的孩子，身体本身就十分虚弱的我实在无法抽身飞往古巴。如今在
调整数日之后，我觉得身体条件允许我亲自前往古巴取回刘越骨灰。我感谢自告奋勇愿
意陪同我到古巴迎取刘越骨灰的两位志愿者，也感谢Andy帮忙联系加拿大领事馆、敦促
古巴的丧葬代理公司尽快进行遗体火化，并为我们争取可以去古巴迎接骨灰的机会。希
望我们可以顺利地将刘越骨灰带回渥太华，早日入土为安。”
但Andy的email说，“March 31, 2014: I helped call the Canadian Embassy in
Cuba as a private citizen and helped liaise Ms. Fanyan Bu with the person in
charge of the regional affairs for Canadians who are in Cuba and also
helped with some English email correspondence until Ms. Fanyan Bu traveled
to Cuba to retrieve Mr. Yue Liu's remains”。
这里面漏洞太多了：
a）被告知在3月30日，而Andy以普通公民身份3月31日才跟驻古巴领事馆联系，被告知
在前联系在后，到底谁在撒谎？
b）“即便家属去古巴也未必能够见到刘越遗体”。为什么见不到？是不是尸体早已火
化？
c）“甚至连观看遗体火化的要求也被拒绝”。被谁拒绝了，是加拿大领事馆还是古巴
有关当局？
d）“敦促古巴的丧葬代理公司尽快进行遗体火化”。即时当时尸体没有火化，是不是
早发出火化尸体的通知了？
e）“为我们争取可以去古巴迎接骨灰的机会”。加拿大人到古巴连签证都不要，为什
么去古巴迎接骨灰的机会需要加拿大领事馆争取？ |
|
