朱瑞：听魏京生先生谈盛雪吞噬五万美元民运捐款

听说，盛雪曾要求参加2016年2月10日在华盛顿召开的“魏京生基金会及中国民主运动海外联席会议”，但魏京生先生拒绝了邀请她。不仅如此，会议中间，魏京生先生还与相关人员谈到赖昌星给民运的五万美元捐款被盛雪鲸吞一事。

这让我想到2010年夏天的一天，我突然接到鲁德成先生的电话，说，魏京生先生和黄慈萍女士，以及黄慈萍女士的母亲都来到了他的家，请我共进晚餐。

通常情况下，我与民运人士是保有距离的。尤其遭遇盛雪之后，就更不敢沾了。但是，我对魏京生先生和黄慈萍女士有着不同的记忆。那是2008年夏天，我在美国维斯康辛州的麦迪逊，倾听达赖喇嘛尊者为时七天的讲授佛法。有一次，听法休息时，一位藏人小孩跑来喊我：“阿佳啦，有两位汉人要见你！”

汉人？我很是吃惊。放眼一望，如海的人流中，多为藏人和老外，还有一些台湾人，汉人是很稀罕的。当然，他们也会出现，不过，只晋见达赖喇嘛尊者，来也匆匆去也匆匆。

于是，我好奇地朝这孩子指给我的方向望去。的确都是很典型的汉人，一位男士和一位女士，正在朝我走来。到了跟前，男士介绍自己是魏京生，女士介绍是黄慈萍。寒暄之后，魏京生先生说，他和黄慈萍是特别前来看望达赖喇嘛尊者的云云。。

我们的见面只有几分钟，但给我留下了记忆。于是，我立刻答应了鲁德成先生。待我走进鲁德成先生家时，首先看见的是黄慈萍女士的母亲，接下来出现了魏京生先生，后来黄慈萍女士也进来了。不过，那天黄慈萍女士和她的母亲离开得很早，待只剩下我、鲁德成先生和鲁太太时，魏京生先生就与我们谈到了盛雪，很不见外地谈到他和盛雪之间发生的一些事情，包括他怎样到加拿大为赖昌星作证，赖昌星怎样答应为民运捐款，后来，盛雪又怎样告诉他，赖昌星的第一批给民运的五万美元捐款已到。再后来，丹麦的刘刚和张国亭，怎么要做联席会议的网站，他怎样嘱咐盛雪，从那五万民运捐款中拔出一万元给刘刚作为建立联席会议网站的经费，而盛雪后来又怎样耍赖，拒不交出那剩下的四万多美元。

听到这里，我忍不住问魏京生先生：“在西方，五千美元就构成犯罪了，五万美元不是小数目，您为何不诉诸法律？”

魏京生先生沉吟起来，只说，一切证词，他都发在《独立评论》上了。我后来特意去查找了魏京生先生的证词，果然都在。不仅如此，我也看到了盛雪给魏京生的回复：“希望魏京生先生以上所谓证词是记忆失误”“万分遗憾有人一再逼迫魏京生先生败坏自己的名声”。

魏京生先生的回答是：“这是一个很长的过程，不会记错。而且不是一个人知道。除非几个人都做假证。”“如果是给我个人的钱，我就捐给我的基金会了。为什么要让盛雪管这笔钱呢？所以不会记错。”“至于说有谁逼着我来坏自己的名声，有些严重了。这有点转移话题了。”

魏京生先生如此言之凿凿！

然而，2011年夏天，我吃惊地看到了由张晓刚发出的《胡平作证，魏京生澄清，“盛雪经手五万美元”子虚乌有》。

五万美元不是小数目，真的会记错吗？ 我看到在此文的下面，范似栋先生评说：“魏京生在判斷力上常有問題,例子多多,就不舉例了。但在記憶力上好像沒有問題。”那么，我们是不是可以从盛雪给魏先生的回复中找到答案？这是不是要挟和黑道的胜利？

然而，盛雪振振有词地说，这一过程中，她所以没和魏京生先生计较，是因为“考虑到魏京生先生的身份、知名度和影响，没有在网络上进行公开回复和澄清。民运整体形象始终是我心中的大局。”

完稿于2016年3月28日

范似栋先生说：“魏京生在判断力上常有问题，例子多多，就不举例了。但在记忆力上好像没有问题。”

盛雪说：“民运的整体形象始终是我心中的大局。”

 

费良勇：盛雪必须立即引咎辞职

盛雪当上民阵主席后，贪腐说谎，造谣中伤、栽赃陷害、公器私用、伪造历史、乱打特务、淫乱放荡等，把民阵搞得乌烟瘴气。因为我不同意盛雪攻击诬陷陈毅然、苏君砚和刘劭夫等人，并在民阵理监事网络会议上批评过盛雪的贪腐说谎行为，盛雪就对我进行了各种挑衅攻击。我宽容了两年多，没有写过一个字揭露盛雪的劣行。民阵主要负责人大都看出，盛雪无才无德，根本不能胜任民阵主席。让她拖过去一届，谢天谢地。这样对她本人、对民阵都好。但盛雪毫无自知之明，公开以私事为由推迟民阵换届改选。将一些乱七八糟的人拉入民阵。后来又炮制了一个不经选举顺延一届的怪胎出来。我们不得不针对盛雪的一系列问题进行澄清说明。在盛雪胡作非为超过3年之际，我和彭小明曾经提出，让她以任何一种体面的理由辞职下台，我们对她的丑事不再做任何公开揭露。但盛雪没有最基本的政治责任感，丝毫不以民阵大局为重，为私利继续赖在民阵主席位置上。许多人士忍无可忍，纷纷出来揭露盛雪的恶性劣行。盛雪没有丝毫悔改，反而把揭露其问题的人士统统打成中共特务。并胡说：“中共有计划、有组织的围剿”她。盛雪除了张扬作秀，有多大能耐，值得中共围剿？

民阵这三年多来的运作都极不正常，一年以来，连网络会议都开不起来，基本上处于瘫痪状态。如今，盛雪提出要开会，秘书长潘永忠拟定了一个民阵网络理监事会议的通知，盛雪竟然涂改得面目全非，公开造谣惑众，我不得不对盛雪通知之荒唐性和流氓性予以揭露。

1. 把民阵理监事会议变成扩大会议。盛雪的所谓扩大会议，就是让那些对她有所求的难民、让那些她刚刚拉入民阵，对民阵不了解的人，让那些对异议者喊打喊杀、要砍头、要割舌头、要下零件的极具恐怖言行的人，到会上来胡闹一通，

按照盛雪的授意指鹿为马、颠倒是非、混淆黑白，进行恐怖威胁。盛雪开创了黑道民运。

2. 盛雪散布谣言说：“有人使用民阵原网址域名生成的后缀设立私密电邮群，提供给持续十年专门攻击民阵同仁的小平头等使用”。此话含有4个谎言。1.我早就解释过，fdc64.de 是我用了10多年的私人域名，我的私人电邮、公司电邮都是用的这个域名。这个域名是我私人买的，民阵没有出过一分钱；2.我同小平头至今没有任何联系；3.我设置的电邮群都是公开的，谈不上私密电邮群；4.小平头不能使用这个电邮群。

3. 盛雪所建立的民阵理监事群组，非法剥夺了一些理监事会成员获得资讯的权利，以及发帖的权利。为了打破盛雪的非法垄断，我才建立了一个专供所有民阵理监事成员使用的电邮组。在这个组群里面，所有人都有同等的收帖权和发帖权。除非有的同仁换了电邮我不知道。

4. 刘劭夫为民阵总部发言人，是盛雪提名的，民阵总部理监事会议通过的。盛雪为何出尔反尔，血口喷人？

5. 《民运黑洞》是朱瑞编辑的。这本书收录了我和彭小明一些揭露盛雪的文章。我们所揭露的盛雪问题，全是事实，经得起历史的考验。我们的文章，欢迎任何媒体发表，欢迎任何人转发。共产党媒体要是转载，我们也欢迎。

6. 盛雪是犯有严重错误的当事者，已经不适于担任涉及其问题的民阵会议主持人。鉴于张小刚同盛雪的情人关系，而且已经发生过两人合谋造谣中伤做伪证的情况，也发生过两人阻止有些与会者正常发言的情况，张小刚也不适合担任网络会议技术管理。

我没有把任何人当成敌人，也没有把任何人打成特务。我们对盛雪的宽容已经变为纵容。纵容了三年多，该有个结果了。盛雪必须立即引咎辞职！

别说盛雪有太多严重问题，单说把民阵搞得如此混乱，全面瘫痪，还不该下台吗？辞职下台的德国总统沃尔夫，其算得上贪腐的金额只有区区700多欧元。盛雪一次会议的贪腐就超过了沃尔夫的十倍乃至数十倍以上，德国的前国防部长和教育部长因为数年前甚至30多年前的博士论文有抄袭作假，一旦揭露出来，马上宣布辞职。前教育部长说，她不认为她的博士论文有问题，但她不愿意看到自己的政党受到重大影响，她首先宣布辞职，其它问题以后再说。民主国家的政治家大都有这样的素质，勇于承担政治责任。而盛雪自诩为民运领军人物，没有任何政治道德。东北俗语说，不抓住手不认账。盛雪是抓住手也不认账。

一次贪腐、一次说谎、一次乱打特务，一次伪造历史，一次栽赃陷害，只要被揭露出来，就得引咎辞职！盛雪做了多少坏事丑事，大家想想看！

民运界的腐败问题，既然存在，就应该揭露，必须揭露。共产党反腐败，民运应该支持和参与，这样社会才会进步。盛雪等人当初为了私利去支持大奸商赖昌星，开创了民运支持腐败的罪恶先例。魏京生在多个场合讲，赖昌星当时拿出5万美元支持他搞民运，4万被盛雪截留私吞。盛雪是少有的打着民运旗号不惜一切手段捞钱捞名的所谓民运人士。

如果民运反腐败，共产党表示支持，我认为是共产党的进步。如果民运反腐败，共产党暗地里支持贪腐的人，那就是共产党在破坏民运。种种迹象表明，一股邪恶的势力在支持盛雪的腐败。盛雪的大量劣行丑事已经被揭露出来，盛雪已经成为中国民运的负资产。共产党巴不得她长期盘踞民阵的主席位置，让民运臭不可闻。盛雪已经完全丧失自知之明。她赖在这个位置上，必然成为靶子，遭到进一步揭露，她自己更臭，民阵也更烂。如果我们对盛雪的劣迹熟视无睹，那正中共产党的下怀。海外民运需要树立正气。我们不要用阶级斗争的观点看问题，这不是敌我斗争，而是正邪之争。盛雪是个两面人，极具欺骗性。她甚至利用社会上的江湖黑道来恐吓打击民运同仁，这已经走得太远了。

盛雪辞职以后，可以做其它民运工作。专制是你死我活，民主讲求你活我也活。但民主政治强调负责任，犯了错误，出了问题，必须负责，该辞职就辞职。下台后，如果真诚地、彻底地改正了错误，重新赢得人们的信赖和支持，还可以东山再起。



2016年3月24日

朱瑞： 剖析盛雪的最新谎言

一、盛雪谎称温哥华汉藏会议上的捐款有“说明”和“证词”

请问：其他汉藏会议都没有募捐，为什么只有你们募捐？会议期间包括中间仅有的一顿饭，都由西藏流亡社会出资，你们有什么花销？共花了多少钱？敢不敢拿出帐来？

有关温哥华汉藏会议的捐款诈捐问题，我都具体写在《盛雪到底是募捐还是诈捐》和《不得不谈 盛雪和她的黑棋》两篇文章里，至今没有任何人回答我。例如，多伦多王春华的捐款，黄河边一 会儿说是1000加元，一会儿说是800加元，别的不说，200加元的差额哪里去了？这些钱的去向如何？

根据黄河边提供的数据，当时有近一万元收入，那么，六、七年过去，为什么至今仍没有精确的收支明细？另外，会议前的晚餐，究竟有多少人募捐？收入多少？支出多少？为什么始终不敢拿出帐目？

然而，盛雪却振振有词地说“黄河边数年来不厌其烦的说明和提供证词”，难道那些荒谬的自我夸奖就算“说明”和“证词”了？

既然黄河边以“加拿大价值守护者联盟”的名义谈募捐，那么，作为一个组织的财务，加拿大法律是有具体规定的。至少要定期公开你的财务收支，包括募捐。

前段时间，我检索这个“加拿大价值守护者联盟”网站，发现除了写着黄河边一个人注册外，什么内容都没有，更不要说财务支出了。

今天再检索，连网址也出不来了。但是，黄河边却以这个组织的名义，不断威胁提出质疑的人，甚至敲诈质疑者交出“旅馆费、餐费、会务杂费234.56分”。

我曾问黄河边，你为什么不在邀请时告诉我有这笔钱？我是贡嘎扎西请去的客人，你跟我说得着吗？另外，你向所有与会嘉宾都收了这笔钱吗？就算我有责任交这笔钱，是不是也该给我个明细，比如餐费是多少钱？哪天哪顿的餐费？会务杂费又指的是什么？多少钱？

六、七年来，连这些最基本的问题都不能回答，还谈什么“说明”和“证词”？！难道拿出又一个谎言就可以塘塞公众的质疑了？这个“加拿大价值守护者联盟”到底是个什么性质的组织？请有根有据地向公众说明。如果连最起码的是非都没有，还谈什么“价值守护”？为什么不敢公开财务收支？六、七年过去了，你们这笔募捐到底去了哪里？

二、盛雪说《“民运”黑洞》是“黄色小说”

3月22日，盛雪向海外各电邮群组发出公开信，说《“民运”黑洞》是“黄色小说”。人所共知，“黄色小说”一词是共党文化中较有代表性的词汇。共党曾把那些优秀文学作品，统称为“黄色小说”，禁止发行。因而，中国人反养成在某种意义上更对禁书好奇、爱读禁书的习惯。

这里先要说的是，盛雪对《“民运”黑洞》的这个定论，表明她压根儿不懂文字作品的分类，把论文集说成小说，在稍有常识者看来，无异于把老虎说成兔子一样离谱。就算你问问小学五级年的学生，大多也能掰开这个镊子吧？人家掰不开的话，会有自知之明地说个“我不懂”，猫起来，而盛雪非要到大庭广众面前得瑟，展露她这半文盲本色。

盛雪受共党文化影响之深，已到了拿共党文化的骨头渣子砸人都不觉害臊的程度。我编辑《“民运”黑洞》这本书，收入的文章都是非虚构的、就事论事的严肃论文，即便上法庭，也是铿锵有力的证言。

关于作品体例的分类，也许盛雪需要从头补课，请你听好：论文不是小说，提供事实夹叙夹议论辩也绝非小说。如果盛雪硬要把这本书扯到“黄色”上，势必会招来更多读者，有请读者细细分辨，其中有关盛雪的那些腥骚发臭的劣迹究竟是事实还是小说？

三、盛雪在关于我与“加拿大议政”微信群一事的信口雌黄

我在《“反共”与质疑盛雪》中，已清楚说明了退出了“加拿大议政”微信群的原委。而在退出之前，除了转发过一篇彭小明的《德国政党法》以外，没发过任何文章，更没有说过一句话，但盛雪却说，我和刘劭夫先生、陈毅然女士“在里面轮番海量散发攻击我（盛雪）和民运的文章。”甚至編出了那个群组的人对我们“进行了苦口婆心的规劝和严肃的教育”等。尽管我知道盛雪很善于撒谎造谣，还是没有想到，这部制造谎言的机器，随时随地如此高效地生产着谎言。

结语

对于一个为了掩盖自己的谎言，必须不断抛出新谎言的人，拆穿谎言者的工作虽然很繁琐，也别无选择。

路遥知马力，日久见人心。这是事实与谎言的较量，也是良知与邪恶的较量。不期然撞上盛雪这号人，珍惜写作时间的我，既然别无选择，只能奉陪到底。

也由衷感谢每一位愿意寻求真相的耐心读者！

费良勇： 民运的黑恶化倾向

民运的黑恶化倾向某种程度堪比中共。很多人也许觉得这话言过其实，夸大了民运界的问题。中共执政的前30年由流氓暴君毛泽东胡作非为，饿死四千万人，害死四千万人，后30多年搞改革开放，虽然经济快速发展，但专制腐败、社会不公、道德沦落、生态环境遭到毁灭性破坏。民运还没有掌握政权，怎么会黑恶化？

中国民运目前处于低潮，但毕竟代表了中国的发展方向。所以，无论民运目前如何不成气候，有多大问题，但民运的正义性、最终必然要在中国取得胜利，中国一定会民主化，这是毋容置疑的。我这里说民运的黑恶化倾向某种程度堪比中共，是指出中国民运目前存在的一些重大问题，从本质上看，不亚于中共的恶劣，不解决这些问题，民运就没有希望。

1. 中共在反腐败，民运在保腐败

绝大部分政权都亡于腐败。中国历朝历代形式上都很重视反腐败，但最后还是亡于腐败。因为不受监督的权力必然腐败，绝对的权力绝对的腐败。中国大陆迄今为止的政权都是专制政权，其权力缺乏制约，所以终归腐败。其实，不完善的民主制度，也会极端腐败。中共为了争取民心，近几年来大力反腐，既打苍蝇，也打老虎，还打军老虎。薄熙来、周永康、徐才厚、郭伯雄等一系列高官纷纷落马。虽然其中不乏权力斗争的因素，但是广大老百姓对于大力反腐总是拍手称快的。我们需要批评的是运动式反腐偏离法治原则，而且没有建立有效的反腐机制从制度上反腐。

中共腐败的同时民运也在腐败，中共反腐的时候，民运却在保腐。在这一点上，民运还不及中共。民运存在腐败，这是事实。例如，民阵主席盛雪（臧锡红）就是极端腐败之人。民运界的诸多问题都集中体现在盛雪一人身上，例如伪造历史、造谣说谎、派捐捞钱、做难民生意，帮助奸商贪官获取居留，用性贿赂腐蚀民运等等。盛雪没有受过高等教育，又不喜欢读书，没有什么真才实学，但非常精于张扬作秀、炒作自己，还善于拉小圈子。民运界女性很少，愿意抛头露面的更少。盛雪有几分姿色，又爱涂抹，竟然在民运界一步步走红。她虽然精于包装自己，但一些丑事还是隐藏不住。可是大部分民运人士认为，人无完人，只要她在高调反共，就不用管她的丑事。但自从她2012年10月当上民阵主席以后，小人得志更猖狂，各种劣根性和贪腐说谎等丑事暴露无遗。已经有很多揭露文章，这里就不一一列举了。

当盛雪的贪腐说谎遭到揭露时，有人出来和稀泥，说不用揭露了，各人做各自的事；有人说，民运这点腐败是小腐败，不值得小题大做；有人说，水至清则无鱼，民运不发工资，盛雪要捞钱，就让她捞吧，就算她的工资；有人指责揭露盛雪贪腐的人是挑起民运内斗；有人破口大骂揭露盛雪贪腐者，有人甚至用暴力语言恐吓揭露盛雪问题的人士，扬言要砍头，要骟掉，要下零件，要割舌头等等。

共产党查证和检举贪官，没有多少人乐于或敢于为贪官说话。民运是一个理想事业，打着民运旗号贪钱，比共产党贪官要可耻得多。高叫反专制口号，就有权利贪腐说谎吗？

“只要盛雪在反对专制，我们就不允许攻击她。”这种话思想水平远远低于共产党。中国原铁道部长刘志军，难道没有为中国的铁道建设做过重大贡献吗？因为贪腐，就得下台，就得坐牢。没有人认为刘志军冤枉。盛雪为民运做了一点事，其丑事就不应该被揭露吗？

2. 民运的贪腐率（相对腐败值）不亚于中共

民运组织没有掌握政权，其贪腐的绝对值当然比中共小得多。中共的一个小贪官，动辄贪污数百万元，大贪都是上亿元。但民运内部的贪腐率（相对贪腐值），与中共相比，就不一定逊色了。所谓贪腐率，指的事某一个事件（如一次会议、一项活动、一个工程等）中，被贪污的金额与该事件总耗费金额的比值。

例如，2011年旧金山辛亥革命百年纪念会议，总耗资大约三万美元，盛雪的贪腐金额至少两万美元以上，盛雪的贪腐率高达70%以上。又如2013年多伦多民运大会，总耗资大约四万美元，盛雪的贪腐至少一万美元以上，贪腐率为25%以上。如果不是我预先有所防范，盛雪还要多贪八千美元以上，贪腐率则高达45%以上。德国人的收入在世界上排名是比较靠前的，许多德国家庭妇女每个月打短工挣钱仅仅450欧元，一年才5400欧元（超过这个值要交收入税）。要知道，辞职下台的德国前总统沃尔夫真正称得上贪腐的金额只有700多欧元。

3. 民运的江湖性超越了中共

所谓江湖性，就是搞江湖帮派、江湖黑道、江湖义气那一套。国民党和共产党都认为自己是革命政党，从一开始起就严防江湖性侵蚀党的肌体。共产党如今已经非常腐败，还是没有人敢公开在党内搞江湖帮派那一套。民运界搞江湖团体那一套目前似乎成了风气。例如，民阵主席盛雪公然同一些人结拜为异性兄妹，不以为耻，反以为荣。当盛雪贪腐说谎乱搞一通遭到揭露时，她的那些结拜兄妹都出来替她说话，有的出来说好话，阻止揭露盛雪，有的破口大骂揭露者，有的用江湖黑道手法威吓揭露者。

结拜文化在某些历史条件下，也许有一些进步意义，但在追求自由民主的组织中，是必须严格禁止的。结拜文化对民运有害无益，对公民社会的建立有害无益，对建立自由民主宪政法治的社会有害无益。简单设想一下，两个人是结拜兄弟，不管甲干好事坏事，乙都要支持他，否则就不够江湖义气。甲贪腐，乙要帮忙隐瞒，甲说谎，乙要帮忙传谣圆谎，甚至帮助做伪证，这个社会还有公正可言吗？限于篇幅，这里不再贽述。以后专文讨论此事。

4. 民运的恐怖语言令人震惊

民运界有一股极端邪恶恐怖的势力。他们高叫暴力革命，却不敢像汪精卫那样，身先士卒去炸贪官。他们叫了几十年暴力革命，没有向中共政权发出过一枪一炮。他们妄图叫别人去送死，自己好坐江山。但是，一旦民运界有不同于他们的声音出现，他们就发疯发狂地恶毒攻击、沮咒谩骂、威逼恐吓。盛雪身边就聚集了这样的极端邪恶恐怖势力。他们叫嚣要对揭露盛雪贪腐说谎等各种问题的人士实施“砍头、废了、阉割、下零件、割舌头”等恐怖手段。主谋不凶，何来帮凶？

社民党创始主席刘国凯先生以“好震惊”为题目发过一篇电邮：“把你废了，吓尿裤子了，把粪姐的烂舌头割下并喂狗，奖1万美金……这类字句使我记起几年前我被辱骂‘刘国凯是狗娘养的’，‘草泥马（操你妈）’好震惊啊!这还是人在讲话吗？有事讲事,有理说理,有状去告,干吗要出如此污秽的语言?”暴力语言就是暴力行为的前奏。这同IS还有多大差别呢？

5. 民运的公器私用和伪造历史超过了中共

中共官员以权谋私、公器私用很普遍，但还没有见到哪个官员在父母的丧葬事情上敢于借用公共媒体和网络大肆宣扬的。盛雪借用民运网络发布了大量她母亲生病的消息和图片，大大超过了任何一位中共“党和国家领导人”去世前所发布的生病消息，任何一位“中共党和国家领导人的家人”去世前所发布的生病消息，更是远远不能相比。这不是公器私用吗？

为了炒作自己，盛雪伪造了其母亲的历史，为了美化其母亲，盛雪又伪造了其外祖父的历史。盛雪将其平庸的母亲美化成了“出生名门、仁爱善良、明辨善恶、立身立德”的民运圣母。彭小明发文揭露了盛雪伪造历史的真相。一些人不去谴责说谎造谣的盛雪，反而去指责揭露谎言的彭小明。这还有正义可言吗？如果盛雪不伪造家族历史，彭小明自然不会去揭露她。戈贝尔虽然说了许多谎言，但都是为推行希特勒和纳粹党的政策而造谣，并没有伪造自己和家族的历史。


2016年3月19日 写于 纽伦堡

彭小明: 谈民阵反腐倡廉以正治邪的思想交锋

关于这次民阵内部反腐倡廉以正治邪的思想交锋，我们的确应该做出一点冷静的判断了。

为了说明盛雪的宣传远离事实，我讲述了盛雪已故母亲的经历。因为落笔成文，承担责任，我和证人早就做好了如果走上法律途径，愿意出庭应讯的准备。

尽 管还有一些人不了解情况，绝大部分的海外民运领导人都绝不表示支持盛雪，而选择了沉默。沉默的意义在这里大家都心知肚明。公开支持盛雪的人，或者是远离加 拿大的一些人士和国内同胞，或者是不懂中文或不懂汉人内部情况的外籍朋友和少数民族朋友。加拿大多伦多当地了解盛雪实情的朋友，绝大多数都知道，我们所说 的情况都是事实，而且多半都是盛雪本人吐露的真相，绝不是无中生有。我们也应该说，民阵理监事都知道我们说的情况是确实的，没有乱说话。罗乐是因为自己账 面不干净，所以处处护着盛雪；其他的各位只是由于中国人的传统面子，还不能站出来戳穿那一层薄薄的遮羞布而已。

民阵从来都不主张打特务，更没有说过任何民阵人是敌人。批评盛雪，也是思想从严，而没有任何惩治的想法。（真有刑事问题，也不是我们可以插手的事情，而是警方或国安的公务）。那种内部一发生思想交锋就觉得你死我活的想法，其实是共产党人的思维定势。盛雪手下的一部分支持者就有这个想法，还振振有词地说，“……到现在盛雪的脑袋还在她的肩膀上。”这是典型的暴力斗争想法。我们没有任何特权和强权，不可能用任何暴力手段去威胁任何人。我们一无所有，只有道义和真理，说白了，就是实践民主的理想主义。要解决的问题就是1.她的腐败问题，2.说话不实事求是的问题和3.不要打特务的问题。盛雪应该对这些事情作出检讨，然后辞职。（实际上应为过期卸职）。做错了事，承担责任，向受害人道个歉，事情就过去了。处理绝不会是暴力的。但是卸职是一定的。否则还成什么海外民运的政治社团？民运团体还要不要声誉和形象？

还有一件事，盛雪开会时会拉上一些没有预先通知和商量的人选冒出来发言表态。如果是理监事会议，就不能任意扩大会议范围，开扩大会议必须有一定的条件和程序。

盛雪把批评说成是什么“中共有计划、有组织的围剿”，中共真的把盛雪看得有那么大吗？围剿是国共两党的惯用语言。我们可以把它束之高阁了。为什么不把这些争议看成是一种内部的交锋呢？反腐和正邪的交锋，是正常的交锋，战斗正未有穷期。

经 过这次思想的交锋，人们看到了民运也在反对贪腐，民主运动也不容贪腐。反腐给每个旁观者也都留下了深刻的印象：民运不是一锅污七八糟的糊涂粥，在民运中上 下其手，乱中取利的事情，早晚还是要败露的。民运是一场理想主义的思想解放运动，是不应该取利，而只能多多奉献的事业。反腐倡廉还告诉我们，过去的那些活 动方式，组织难民搞示威的方式早已经过时了。现在难民的身份更加复杂，里面还有贪官和逃犯混杂其间，那里边一定会有肮脏的手，会发生各种交易。民运绝不可 以再蹚那里的浑水。盛雪的这类生意也越来越难做了。民主运动应该走向更高的层次，利用我们在海外的民主环境，给国内的民运战友输送精神食粮，（例如翻译必要的民主宪政文献，介绍国外的民主政治实例），为国内民运战友在国内无法实践的多党竞争、互相制衡操演出预演模式，像西方政治家那样生活检点，严肃自律， 为实现抱负而牺牲个人欲望……我们可以做的事情很多。根据我的观察和阅读，德国的政党都很注意思想的更新，成员的更新，运作方式的更新。民阵应该看到自己 的问题。在这次交锋中，我的一个感觉，就是发现部分反驳我们的文章，（赤裸裸的暴力和脏话就不说了），有不少思维相当陈旧，例如对文凭、对血统、对个人崇 拜、对性自由和爱情的坚贞、对学术的严谨，流露出的看法都还是文革时代后的残余（青少年时的印象），到了海外基本没有更新，那么出国岂不是白出了？出国是 来学习民主的，是把国内洗脑时的狼奶吐出来，而不是来混逍遥的。

学学德国的默克尔吧！面对难民危机她大爱无疆，面对科尔（她的培养提拔者）的贪腐她大义灭亲（全不顾及哥们义气），面对婚姻和生活她清廉检点！我翻译了《德 国政党法》，我们一时还无法像德国政党那样完全正规地开展活动，但是我们要尽量向这个方向努力，懂得自己要受到哪些约束，民主政治并不就是喊喊口号，骂骂 独裁，还有很多需要遵守的规则和必要的自律。

2016年3月23日

朱瑞：“反共”与质疑盛雪

——兼谈“加拿大华人议政”微信群和电线杆子上的传单

一

有些“民运”人士常激情地宣称，只要“反共”，就是我们的朋友。因此，我对盛雪的质疑，经常被扣上破坏他们“反共”大业的帽子，甚至在不久前，还有人说我是中共“国安”。

那么，什么是“反共”？

在我看来，反共就是与中共的分离。比如，中共独裁，你就民主，尊重每个个体；中共贪腐，你就清廉和作风正派；中共造谣，你就说真话、不撒谎；中共搞新闻封锁，你就提倡言论自由，尊重不同的声音，诚实地面对公众；中共搞帮派，你就立足于人格独立，不搞结党营私；中共崇尚强者，你就同情爱护弱者……。“反共”，在我看来，是重新建构自己独立精神的过程。

虽然在这个过程经历中你没有喊一句“反共”口号，但你尽可能地克服中国共产极权制度带来的劣性，尽可能地清除那些逆文明的浊气，这就是实实在在的“反共”。这一过程，并不是为了“反共”而“反共”，只是为了做一个正常的人。因此，中共的毒素，在你的身上难以找到寄生的机会。

相反，中共贪腐你也贪腐，中共撒谎你也撒谎，中共打击异议你也打击异议，还不惜大小帽子满天飞，在这种情况下，你的“反共”口号喊得越响，就越让人生疑。稍有洞察力的人会一目了然：你在把“反共” 当成了一个藏污纳垢的招牌，你在曲线拥共。的确，注意观察这些只喊口号，从不揭露中共具体问题的人，就会发现，他们往往都是些人格上有着严重缺陷、背景十分模糊的人：比如盛雪。

二

盛雪给自己的定位是“引领中国变革”的“重量级”民运人士。但是，除了她那个打着“民运”旗号的小圈子，其他华人却不以为然。

这得先从费良勇先生邀我加入“加拿大华人议政”微信群说起。说实话，我是个不太喜欢交往的人，也从没参加过任何微信群组。但是，费先生相邀，也就同意了。没成想，加入这个“议政群”后，我的手机响个不停，不断显示新的微信信息。而当时我正在改稿，深觉烦扰，就退了出来。

然而，第二天（3月14日），我看到盛雪给海外各大电邮群组发出公开信，指责我加入“加拿大华人议政”微信群：

“今天，费良勇在‘加拿大华人议政群’一言不发地潜伏了几个月之后，看到有人和我为一个老师打学生的视频争论时，突然出手，发布攻击我的资料，包括费良勇和小平头、朱瑞、刘劭夫等人写的联合声明。……在遭到几位群员的抵制之后，费良勇先生立即拉刘劭夫和朱瑞入群……我对他涌起一股酸楚的怜悯之情，就像我看到在加拿大渥太华国会山前，天寒地冻的雪地里，带着两岁的孩子举牌向我示威的那个男人，不知道是什么在造孽。”

三

读到这里，我又回身加入了那个“加拿大华人议政”微信群。原因是：一， 我有权加入任何一个愿意接受我的微信群组；二，我想听听盛雪怎样就这封《关于盛雪问题的公开信》为自己辩护。

接下来，我放下手中的一切活儿，好奇地查看起微信。发现盛雪正在询问是谁拉费良勇进入这个“加拿大议政群”的：

“不知道是哪位朋友拉德国纽伦堡华人费良勇进群的，有点好奇。”盛雪说。

“不明白为什么费良勇这个德国纽伦堡华人不去用心于德国的议政，而对加拿大华人议政这么感兴趣。但是他在群里几个月都没有发过一个字，看到有人和我争论，立即向我拍了几块砖。当jane等群友指出他的这种做法很不地道时，费良勇立即拉刘劭夫和朱瑞进入这个群。”盛雪又说。

“费良勇拉了两个人进来，一个是刘劭夫一个是朱瑞。”盛雪再次霸气十足，仿佛我加入这个群组，非要经过她的批准似的。

接下来，就有盛雪团伙，如赖建平、黄河边等，开始指责这封《关于盛雪问题的公开信》是群殴，是向盛雪一个人拍砖，完全不提盛雪拉那些不明真相的西人为她站台在先，她利用亲共媒体《明报》指责我们“诬蔑抹黑盛雪”在先。盛雪这伙人还胡诌这封公开信说的都是些“鸡毛蒜皮”的小事儿。总之，没有一个人具体指出这封公开信到底有什么不实之处。

还有一些化名的人显然来自盛雪团伙，此时发出了《明报》挺盛雪的文章和盛雪站在渥太华街头电线杆子下，指着那些带有她的照片的传单。于是，盛雪团伙又开始骂这个“贴传单的人”，并影射小平头。

小平头居住在丹麦，他怎会为了往渥太华街头电线杆子上贴这么几张传单，特别坐飞机跑到加拿大？再说，小平头到哪里去弄盛雪的这些照片呢？其中有一张电线杆子上的盛雪照片，可以看得出是她站在花丛间，我还真没有在任何公共平台见过。

退一步说，就算小平头不惜大老远的从丹麦跑到加拿大的渥太华，就为了往电线杆子上贴这几张传单，那么，他会选择这些盛雪自己喜爱的照片吗？ 他肯定会选那张盛雪站在达兰萨拉一家酒店的椅子上，闭着眼睛，呲牙咧嘴，高调“一百多个男人教我游泳我都没有学”的照片，或者那些盛雪与阿海的亲密照。 那么，这电线杆子上的传单到底是谁贴的？是谁在贼喊捉贼？盛雪在各大电邮群组炒作此事“太離奇”，但在我看来，一点也不离奇，都是些她屡试不爽、以假乱真的猫儿腻。她利用的则是人们惯于疏忽常识的错误。

四

再回来说这个“加拿大华人议政”微信群，正当盛雪和她的团伙，越掰越离谱的时候，出来了一个叫“雷鸣”的群友，此人对渥太华街头电线杆子上贴传单的事有些反感，明显同情盛雪。当然，他作为旁观者，很难立刻发现这里的欺诈 。但不知怎么的，说着说着，“雷鸣”就和盛雪拥趸“赖建平”吵了起来，这时，盛雪团伙一拥而上，毫不吝啬地冲着“雷鸣”扣了几顶“反民主”的大帽子。

“雷鸣”不由得感慨：我本来担忧盛雪的安全，现在看来，还是该忧虑一下我自己的安全了，有人说盛雪有打手的事儿，看来不是假的（大意）。“每个人都有每个人的故事，看法不同就扣帽子，我觉得不妥。”“ 你们的民主只适用于你们自己” “民主靠你们这些人，还不如不要民主。”“你们嘴里的民主其实就是你们的独裁。”

五

第二天， 这个微信群组里出现一位女孩子，谈自己对政治的兴趣，还得到了一些网友的支持。有人说：“‘反民主’也没有什么不好的，任何人都可以有自己的思想，只要说的是真话，就比拿‘民主’作晃子强”。

显然，这都是针对盛雪团伙扣大帽子而言。他们似乎是更为年轻的一代，更为客观地审视中国和加拿大的政治，并对以盛雪为代表的“民运”很不以为然。

看到这里，我再次退出这个“加拿大华人议政”微信群，因为我要说的话，这些年轻人已说了，而我正在思想的话，他们也已经成熟表达了，再留在这个群组已属多余，何况我手里攒了不少的活儿，急待完成。

然而，今早有朋友告诉我，盛雪在“加拿大议政”微信群，与那些年轻人打起来了，打得很厉害。我还真想像不出，面对那些坦诚的年轻人，盛雪还有什么可狡辩的。但朋友很快就传来了盛雪的振振有词儿：

“我可以想像是朱瑞、刘劭夫或费良勇及时给您发送了炮弹。您不鄙视他们的这种行为吗？”

然而，另一个网友答道：

“盛雪，我谷歌了你的名字，上面写什么你很清楚。我不愿意攻击别人，民运我也没有太多看法，这是以前。现在才知道和flg一伙。只能呵呵了。”

接下来，就有网友提供了《民运黑洞》的链接。但盛雪无视其中列举的大量事实，继续佯装没看见向她提出的诸多问题，作出如下回应：

关于《民运黑洞》，我提供这样的视角：1，如我违反法律，请诉诸法律，不要用贴大字报的方式；2，如我做错了事，请通过组织程序解决，不要铺天盖地的抹黑；3，如我罪大恶极如此不堪，你们有些人与我共事二十多年，怎么一夜之间就变了；4，如果是我的问题，为什么说民运黑洞，是要借此黑民运吧。你们就不能算作民运人士了；5，内容涉及朱学渊老先生的，他已经有证词，所有内容都是谎言；6， 涉及2009年温哥华会议的，该会主办单位已经有证词，所有内容都是谎言言；7，其实该书内容都是谎言，你们用谎言攻击我和民运，你们会为此付出代价。

她的这些说辞，咋一看，似乎冠冕堂皇，其实不禁推敲，下面容我一一指出吧：

1，什么是“大字报”？大字报是只有结论没有事实的大而空文章。这本书里篇篇文章都以事实为根据，哪篇文章属于大字报？大字报之言是盛雪贴标签扣大帽。至于说诉诸法律，不免透露一点消息，加拿大警方和安全部门，早已在调查盛雪，但盛雪对这个事实避而不谈。

2，盛雪这里谈到“组织程序”，我忍不住要问问，你什么时候拿“组织程序”当回事了？ 2014年10月你的主席任职就到期了，你不按组织程序召开任选大会，却利用小圈子恶势力赖住主席职位，擅自“顺延”一届，根据“组织程序”，你已是“伪主席”了，你倒大言不惭地在这里说“组织程序”，欺骗那些不明真相的人，你脸皮真厚！

3，盛雪说的“共事二十多年”，算什么理由？观察一个像盛雪这种多层伪装的人，是很复杂的过程，二十多年，不是仍然有人没认清其根底吗？

4，质疑盛雪就被说成是“黑民运”？说实话，从八九六四时民运得到全世界的支持，到今天瓦解分化，鱼龙混杂，难分真假，各类人物利用六四出现，有招摇撞骗者、有欺世盗名者、有劣迹斑斑者，不胜枚举，这些败坏民运的人物为什么不能揭露和质疑？为什么不可以指出其“黑”？我们促请真民运打假揭疮，倾听公众意见，引发有深度的反思反省！

5，朱学渊的“证词”在哪儿？为啥不敢拿出来？连朱学渊自己都心虚地与那“证词”一起消失了，你却拿这个笑柄当依据？足见厚颜无耻！

6，说到温哥华会议，你在拿黄河边的那个只有进款没有出款的“坦白交代”蒙混过关吗？你那些以达赖喇嘛尊者之名的捐款到底去了哪里？你装什么装？

盛雪最后一概而论地说《民运黑洞》全部内容都是谎言，凭这句大而空的概论，就足以说明，盛雪在逃避具体问题，在躲避回答公众质疑，盛雪才是假大空的“大字报”。

揭露盛雪，就如同反共一样，一定要与她拉开距离，比如， 她撒谎造谣，我们就一定要讲真话；她搞小圈子，我们就一定要坚守独立人格；她贪污腐败，我们就一定要清廉作风正派；她搞那些贼喊捉贼的妖蛾子，我们就一定要堂堂正正，对自己的言行负责。事实上，只有正，才能让邪现形；只有善，才能让恶现形；只有真，才能让假现形。

A Brief Introduction to The Black Hole of the Chinese Democratic Movement

If you pay close attention to the global struggle for human rights, you have probably already noticed opportunistic individuals or groups sometimes appear on the scene and use the pro-democracy cause to further their own selfish agendas.  More specifically, they infiltrate groups and organizations that were formed to further human rights and fight authoritarianism in order to gain permanent residency so that they can economically benefit from the generosity of a host country that welcomes and offers protection to the oppressed.

The Black Hole of the Democratic Movement exposes the corrupt activities of Zang Xihong (otherwise known as Sheng Xue), a Chinese Canadian who has financially exploited others for her own personal gain through her position of assisting in the verification of the refugee status of prospective Chinese refugees to Canada.

Zang Xihong is not only a pseudo-political community leader, but also a reporter of somewhat dubious status. She has held the positions of Writer in Residence at Carleton University and McMaster University, and has also held the position of Writer in Exile at the University of Alberta.  Interestingly, she didn’t publish any writings while she held those posts, yet she continues to misuse her influence in attempts to gain positions on Canadian literary bodies. 

Zang Xihong sometimes holds conferences, anti-communist protests, and freedom rallies for Tibet as well as many other causes that she has hijacked. For these events, she has collected donations, large amounts of which found their way into her own pocket. Although she has assisted in some legitimate ways, such as helping some wrongfully persecuted Chinese lawyers and writers, she used these examples as advertisements to further her own illegitimate refugee processing business for Chinese economic refugees and corrupt Chinese government officials. She fabricates backgrounds for these privileged clients in order to circumvent Canadian government regulations, and in return, she accepts monetary and even property kickbacks. 

Many people have questioned her and have exposed her corruption for defrauding of the Canadian government’s political asylum policies. However, because Zang Xihong is surrounded by many supporters who have criminal connections, she is often able to threaten and intimidate anyone who criticizes her. 

 The Black Hole of the Democratic Movement shows how Zang Xihong and her group are a malignant tumor on the Chinese democratic movement, damaging the generosity of her host country and soiling the cause she claims to support. The authors of the book openly confront this growing problem that threatens to undermine the Chinese democratic movement.  It is a collection of cautionary essays, which through their unflinching examination, gives hope that the movement can be purified, restored and renewed.

  https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/id1072423697 

朱瑞：我与力挺盛雪的《明报》打交道

《明报》自2016年2月21日至3月10日，在短短十数天时间内，以“专讯”连发四篇明显倾向盛雪的报道。致使质疑盛雪的人们不得不在3月10日发出《关于盛雪问题的公开信》说明真相。明报紧接着在3月12日又发出第五篇“专讯”，移花接木、张冠李戴、无中生有。

《关于盛雪问题的公开信》发出的第二天，2016年3月11日的早晨，我也寄给（电邮）了《明报》，而后打电话以确认他们是否收到。接线员回答：“现在新闻部无人上班，请下午5点以后再打电话。”

下午5点左右，我再次电话《明报》，并请转接新闻部。

“有什么事可以帮忙？” 有人拿起电话。

“我想确认一下今早我电邮给你们的《关于盛雪问题的公开信》是否收到？”我说。

“你是刘劭夫吗？”对方问。

“不是，我叫朱瑞。我想告诉你们，如果你们收到了我寄去的《关于盛雪问题的公开信》，希望你们全文刊发。因为《明报》在不足一个月内发表的四篇支持盛雪的“专讯”，错误百出。比如，在3月3日的“专讯”中，称特赦組織挺盛雪，事实上，特赦组织根本就没有挺盛雪，并且，Micheal Craig也不是大赦国际的中国观察员，他只是一名义工，他的行为只代表他自己。这是大赦国际真正的中国观察员Ms. Gloria Nafziger亲自跟我说的。”

“这样吧，请你留下电话，我一会儿让相关人员给你回话。”对方说。

我于是留了电话。

一会儿，我的电话响了，是《明报》打来的。我问：“您是否收到了我寄去的《关于盛雪问题的公开信》？”

“收到了，我打电话就是要告诉您，我们收到了。”对方接着问道，“您是刘劭夫吗？”

“不是，我叫朱瑞。我希望你们全文刊出我们的公开信。一个正常的报纸，要倾听多方的声音，至少是双方的声音，对吗？”

“对。”对方说。

“但是，你们在不足一个月内发出四篇关于盛雪的“专讯”中，都是盛雪一方的声音。当然，你们采访过刘劭夫先生，但是，那个采访者杜海萍，只是问刘先生认不认识张向阳，刘先生说：‘不认识，但我了解盛雪的其他问题。’ 杜海萍说：‘盛雪的其他问题我不想知道，我只想谈张向阳。’这种采访是很不负责的，而你们接下来的报道就更不负责任了。虽然刘劭夫先生否定了与张向阳认识，但你们还是把刘劭夫和张向阳扯到一起，说张向阳在推特上转推一个叫‘刘邵夫’发布的‘盛雪胴体’的祼照，‘经查证，这个刘劭夫就是刘轩’。而事实上，这个推特上的‘刘劭夫’并不是真正的刘劭夫先生，是有人盗用刘先生的名字注册的推号，刘先生早已为此发表了声明，你们应为这个错误负责。这样的采访对当事人和读者都是极不尊重的，读者有知情权。所以，我们要求《明报》全文登出我们的公开信，哪里出错误，就该在哪里得到纠正。”

“这样吧，请你写一个要求我们全文登刊公开信的书面理由，并把您所知道的有关盛雪问题的资料都寄给我们。”对方说。

于是，我写了一个书面说明，附上了《民运黑洞》一书的链接和最近几篇相关文章，于3月12日早晨寄给《明报》，我的信函如下：

明报编辑部：

谢谢昨天打来电话，告知收到了我寄去的《有关盛雪问题的公开信》。那还只是汉文版，我们还有一个英译版，今天也一并寄上（见附加档）。

你们要求我写一个全文登刊《关于盛雪问题的公开信》的理由，其实，公开信中已说得很清楚，不过，我在这里再强调两点：

1、在短短的时间内，你们发表的四篇有关盛雪问题的专讯，都是来自盛雪的单方面之言。而一个正常的媒体，最基本的原则就是客观中立，倾听双方的声音，尊重读者的知情权。

2、你们的四篇专讯中，每一篇都包含了大量的不实信息，模糊了事实，你们应该承担这个责任。在哪里出现问题，就应该在哪里得到更正。

祝好！
朱瑞

可是，3月12日，我发出信的当天下午，发现《明报》发出了第五篇“专讯”：《盛雪渥京報案 警追查將告誡張向陽 朱瑞報警稱遭冒名發布盛雪“裸照”》。此文中还涉及到我与这位男士的电话对话，是这样介绍的：

“本報在昨天接到一封來函，就推特上盛雪的‘裸照’發出聲明，來函者自稱為朱瑞，並附上其在卡加利的電話號碼。聲明中指出：‘近日發現有卑劣者冒充本人姓名發布涉及盛雪的內容及其相片的推文，此人在2014年曾冒充過本人。為了維護本人名譽，本人已向警方報案，以求查明冒名者之身分，加以懲戒。希望推友們明辨真假，予以揭露。特此聲明！加拿大劉劭夫’”

《明报》竟然无中生有地说我为“裸照”之事发出声明，且张冠李戴、移花接木，如此胡说八道！

事实上，我与《明报》交谈时，全部内容就是要求他们全文刊登我们的公开信，总之，根本没有提及“专讯”的上述内容，这完全是《明报》强加给我的！

为什么《明报》如此大胆违背最起码的新闻操守，造谣污蔑？

如果知道《明报》与中共的渊源和根底，就不难理解这些欺骗行为了。一位名为梅杜哲（Mei Duzhe）的作者，早在2001就撰文披露出《明报》与中共的关系，梅杜哲的文章发表在詹姆斯通基金会的出版物《中国概述》第1卷，第10期中，他这样披露《明报》与中共的关系：

1997年香港“回归”之前，还在90年代初期，中国就收购了几家香港的主要媒体机构，都是通过利用与中国有紧密商务联系的第三方商人完成的。《明报》就是其一：1995年10月，《明报》被马来西亚木材业商戴图克·熊许金（Datuk Tiong Hiew King）收购。而《明报》纽约办公室的雇员，甚至透露说他们“真正的老板”不是别人，正是中国（驻纽约）领事馆，并且他们有义务完成领事馆要求做的一切事。

《明报》当前如此铺天盖地力挺被强烈质疑和揭露的盛雪，那么，究竟是谁在操控这个民主社会里的丑陋媒体？

陈毅然：我去《明报》交涉盛雪问题的经历

在不足一个月的时间里，多伦多《明报》加东版发表了五篇只有盛雪一家之言、明显带有误导的专讯。因此，3月14日上午，我亲自到《明报》编辑部，送去我们3月10日发表的《关于盛雪问题的公开信》，并附有公开信签名人写给《明报》的一封短信，短信要求全文刊登我们的《公开信》，更正以往的错误，听取另一方声音，尊重读者的知情权。

任何一个中立客观的新闻媒体，都愿意倾听双方的声音，何况我主动上门，他们自然应该是欢迎的，或至少是客客气气，即便他们不想对自己的工作失误表示歉意，表面上也应当过得去。但我在《明报》的经历却并非如此。

3月14日那天上午，我先到前台对接待员说明来意，她说：“我们有个规定，你没有预约不能会见编辑。”我说：“你们报纸最近报道的有关盛雪的专讯，有不实的报导，还有移花接木、张冠李载的问题。”这位接待员女士拿起电话，与另一方用英文简单介绍了我反映的情况。接下来，就从里面出来了一个中年男人，没有任何寒暄地厉声问我：“你有什么事？”

不等我说话，他接着说：“我已经跟朱瑞通过话了，都已经说清楚了!”

我一听就知道他这话完全不属实。朱瑞已经告诉了我真实情况，朱瑞说，她与这位男士通了电话后，《明报》却又发出一篇无中生有的专讯，专讯中还编造了一段她根本没说的谈话内容栽到她头上。我于是想，我既然来了，就该把我知道的关于盛雪的问题跟他说明一下。

我说：“我了解的事实不是你们报道的那样……”他打断我说：“是推特上有人这么写的，我们只是登出来，与刘劭夫和朱瑞同名同姓全世界多得是，你愿意认为是说你，我们也没办法。”他竟然说出这等胡搅蛮缠的话，让我目瞪口呆。可我还是试图说明我的意见，试图告诉他，我就是当事人。我说：“盛雪问题是有事实依据的，你们只听一面之词，不仅有失媒体的客观公正原则，也会让你们陷入被动，调查一下真相，只能对你们更有利。”我说这段话时，他几次不耐烦地打断我，他几乎不让我说完整任何一句话，并几次转过身往他的办公室的方向走，表示出极度的不耐烦，最后终于一边走一边说：“盛雪是好人坏人我们不管，你们说她违法，你去告她！你们说我们错，就去告我们！”

他甚至不接受我给《明报》的公开信，他说：“你用挂号信直接寄给总编吧！”

对他的无理，我也很生气，忍不住抬高声音对他说：“你叫什么名字？给我你的名片！”我等在那里，过了一会，他从办公室出来，手里拿着一张名片递给我，我看见上面写的是：署理采访主任樊贻德。

《明报》如此不顾事实地无中生有，一派党媒的欺骗作风，《明报》的署理采访主任樊贻德先生对读者如此无礼冒犯，一派共产党官员的霸道嘴脸，这段经历是我在文明的西方世界生活近二十年来第一次遇到。

陈毅然于加拿大

附：《关于盛雪问题的公开信》联名人给明报的信：

《明报》编辑部：

2016年3月11日早晨，我们寄给你们《关于盛雪问题的公开信》并要求全文刊登。至今，不仅没有收到你们的任何答复，却又看到你们于3月12日发表了一篇特讯《盛雪渥京報案 警追查將告誡張向陽 朱瑞報警稱遭冒名發布盛雪「裸照」》，其中有移花接木、张冠李戴等错误内容。在不足一个月的时间里，你们發表了五篇《明报特讯》，都是来自盛雪的一面之词。因此，我们再次要求你们全文刊登我们的公开信，并要求贵刊尽快明确回复，是否准备刊登这封公开信：

1、一个正常的媒体，尤其是民主世界的媒体，最基本的新闻原则就是客观中立，倾听双方的声音，尊重读者的知情权。

2、必须为你们不实的信息承担责任。在哪里出现问题，就应该在哪里得到更正。

签名人：

卞和祥、陈毅然、费良勇、鲁德成、刘劭夫
刘晓东、彭小明、韩文光、苏君砚、萧宏、朱瑞

An open letter to the signatories of the statement“In Recognition of Sheng Xue”

We are a group of overseas Chinese devoted to the Chinese democracy movement. We are citizens and taxpayers of our adopted homelands, where democracy prevails and citizens are entitled with the right to question any public figure. Ms. Sheng Xue (official name ZANG Xihong) is the present Chair of the Federation for a Democratic China (“FDC”), an NGO with members from many parts of the world. As a public figure, we therefore have the right to question Sheng Xue’s actions and conduct, specifically as they relate to her abuse of power, embezzlement of funds, and involvement in immigration fraud.

The response by Ms. Sheng and her supporters to our questioning has not been to defend her with facts, explanations or clarifications, but instead to label us as slanderers and to accuse us of launching personal attacks against her. Ignoring the facts and questions we have presented, while spurning independent and unbiased investigation into her activities is embracing ignorance.

Since November 2015 a person named Zhang Xiangyang has been protesting in front of the Parliament Hill in Ottawa, holding a placard and alleging that Sheng Xue is a Communist spy. What his motivation is and who is behind him, if anyone, has absolutely nothing to do with us and with our questioning of Sheng Xue. We do not know Mr. Zhang personally and have never had any contact with him. All the information that we know about Mr. Zhang Xiangyang is either written or forwarded by Sheng Xue. Interestingly, Mr. Zhang refuses to give any interviews and present any evidence to support his claims. At the same time, Ms. Sheng Xue uses any opportunity she can to incorrectly state that we and Mr. Zhang Xiangyang are of the same group and the CCP is pulling the strings. We would welcome Mr. Zhang Xiangyang to provide more details regarding his accusations, because without them, it all seems to be a very convenient distraction from the serious allegations made against Sheng Xue. 

We have also noticed that from February 21 to March 7, 2016 the Chinese newspaper Ming Pao Eastern Edition in Toronto has published four (clearly biased) special reports in support of Sheng Xue. A 2001 report on Chinese media censorship by the Jamestown Foundation cited Ming Pao as one of four major overseas Chinese newspapers directly or indirectly controlled by Beijing. 

Ming Pao’s report on March 3, 2016 was titled “Amnesty International finds nothing to indicate Sheng Xue to be a communist spy and will report to the police and the Intelligence Agency for investigation”. It was written that Mr. Michael Craig from Amnesty International supported Sheng Xue and would organize with a dozen supporters a press conference in Toronto city center at 2pm on March 4 on behalf of Sheng Xue.

On March 4, 2016 a joint statement titled “In Recognition of Sheng Xue” signed by a dozen people was widely spread through internet, emails and WeChat. The exaggerated use of words to praise her reminds us of the language used in the deification of Mao Zedong during the Chinese Cultural Revolution. 

After receiving this statement, Liu Xiyu wrote a penetrating comment: Our judgments are based on common sense. Zhou Yongkang (an extremely corrupted Chinese official) might be capable of collecting a million signatures to praise his greatness and unselfishness. Could that be used to prove his innocence? Hitler could also have been capable of finding supporting signatories. However, these tricks do not help. What helps is to keep to the subject. Fencing around questions and trying to persuade non-judicial persons that one is not a spy, but instead more like a saint, does not pass the smell test in this case. 

In the announcement of the press conference it was articulated that the joint statement had been signed by organizations concerned about the Chinese human rights and justice. We would like to ask a few questions here: 

- Which organizations are you representing?
- In which way are you authorized to represent these organizations?
- Do you have any legal documents of authorization?
- If this statement is questioned of its legal liability, is it you or is it your organizations, who will take the responsibilities?

This joint statement begins: “Means of a highly organized people are using disinformation slander in an attempt to Ms. Sheng Xue marginalized, forced into making an isolated situation, she was knocked down, because Ms. Sheng Xue against Chinese tyranny of the most powerful critic one.”

After checking the Chinese version of the Statement, we are able to understand the English version and reformulate it in a grammatically correct way: “Highly organized groups are using disinformation and slander in an attempt to marginalize Ms. Sheng Xue, suppress her, and force her into isolation, because she fights against Chinese tyranny.” 

We would like to ask a few questions here:

- What evidence has helped you to make the above conclusions?
- How many of them are personal impressions? How many of them are ex parte arguments from Sheng Xue? How many of them are facts?

Further, it has come to our attention that there are several Canadians who are native English speakers and signatories of this statement. To them we would like to ask: 

- Have you ever read any of the Chinese articles written by any of us exposing the problems of Sheng Xue?
- Why would you put your name to the English version of the statement, which is so poorly written and contains so many grammatical errors that it is in some parts unintelligible? 

There is an old saying in China: Listen to both sides and you will be enlightened; heed only one side and you will be blinded. It is a wise old saying passed down thousands of years and can still be applied today to the case of Sheng Xue. We are of the opinion that it is unwise and surely biased of you to praise Sheng Xue without listening to the arguments of a group of independent individuals, who know the real Sheng Xue.

The main revealers of Sheng Xue’s problems are Mr. Fei Liangyong, Mr. Peng Xiaoming, Mr. Liu Shaofu, Ms. Chen Yiran and Ms. Zhu Rui. All of these names are real and legal names. There is nothing to be afraid of if the questioning is based on facts. The first three are all senior members of the Chinese democracy movement, while Zhu Rui is a novelist, and Chen Yiran is a former board member and bookkeeper of the Shiyuan Project (a project for helping families of political prisoners in China).

Mr. Fei Liangyong is the longest FDC Chairman ever served (Oct. 2003 - Oct. 2012) and the founder and legal representative of the registered NGO "Forum for a Democratic China and Asia".

Mr. Liu Shaofu has been engaging in the Chinese democracy movement since 1978. In July of 1991, he joined "The Chinese Alliance of Democracy (CAD)", the first overseas political opposition organization of mainland Chinese background since 1949. He was elected to be the member of the Supervisory Council of the Alliance for a Democratic China (“ADC”) headquarters and served as the Chair of the ADC Toronto branch. He has been participating in the FDC activities since 2002 and has been the speaker of FDC Canada branch. Since November 2012 he has been holding the position of being the speaker for FDC headquarters.

Mr. Peng Xiaoming has been a Chinese democrat for more than two decades. Seven members of his family were categorized by the CCP as rightists during the anti-rightist movement, and his father was persecuted and died in the CCP prison. He has been the Chair of the Chinese Students and Scholars Organization in Germany since 2002 and the Vice-Chair of FDC headquarters since 2012.

There is another Chinese scholar, Mr. Su Junyan, that needs to be mentioned here. He was the board member of the FDC headquarters and Vice-Chair of the FDC Canada branch. Sheng Xue demanded donations from him and later spread a rumor that Mr. Su wanted to buy the post of Chair of FDC Canada branch. In July 2013 he openly resigned from FDC because Sheng Xue's abuse of power and corruption ran counter to the democratic cause.

All of the six revealers mentioned above have been labeled by Sheng Xue as communist spies.

Since its foundation in 1989, the Federation for a Democratic China (“FDC”) has had 11 chairpersons. Sheng Xue took this position in October 2012. None of the first ten chairpersons have been accused of corruption or fraud. The main revealers of Sheng Xue are members of the Chinese democracy movement who have known her for over 20 years, and bear witness to her abuse of power, fraud and corruption.

The term of Sheng Xue as the Chair of FDC headquarters should have been terminated in October 2014. However, she refused to hold the congress in time for a new election. The following year she asked one of her followers to organize another meeting, which was not recognized by the FDC board. FDC Vice-Chairpersons Mr. Peng Xiaoming, Mr. Tang Yuanjun, Secretary General Mr. Pan Yongzhong, Chair of the Supervisory Council Mr. Chan Luenkwan, former Chair and present board member Mr. FEI Liangyong and former Chair of the Supervisory Council Mr. Zhang Jian were all absent at this meeting. The Vice-Chair Mr. Liang Youcan was present but suggested to postpone the new election since the meeting did not enjoy a proper quorum. However, Sheng Xue disregarded this position and unilaterally moved to renew her chairmanship for another term.

This type of unilateral power grab is unprecedented by the KMT, not even by China’s most notorious political organization the CCP. It was against the Charter of FDC and Sheng Xue was therefore asked to give up her chairmanship. Unexpectedly, she not only refused to resign, but also launched an attack against those who objected to her coup, and who since then receive an unending stream of harassing mail and threats. She may have thought the opposition to her misconduct would die down, but instead the questioning and exposure of her misconduct has continued to grow. In the short period of three years where she has served as Chair, FDC has been dogged by scandal, and is now totally crippled.

Anyone who decides to raise their voices in support of Sheng Xue needs to research these points and question why she faces such outspoken opposition from so many long-term and respected Chinese democracy advocates. The signatories of the joint Statement simply cannot know Sheng Xue's life and deeds as intimately as her former colleagues, associates, and friends. 

Sheng Xue's misconduct has paralyzed the FDC, and it is not only the right but the responsibility of its members to stand up to her. Mr. Michael Craig, if he did indeed author the statement attributed to him, has unfortunately made some hasty conclusions by suggesting that we are supported by the Chinese government, or that we are somehow hiding in the darkness. We are here, Mr. Craig, and you are free to contact us at any time. Just as astonishing is his statement that no Chinese human rights activists or a pro-democracy movement in Canada can meet or exceed the tireless and selfless efforts of Sheng Xue. Clearly these exaggerated compliments (which have been paraphrased above because the text in English is riddled with grammatical errors) read more like slogans, and demonstrate how little knowledge this person actually has about the Chinese Democracy Movement and its supporters. Although Sheng Xue may have done some good in her past, it cannot be reconciled with the fraud and corruption in which she has been involved.

We contacted the Toronto office of Amnesty International Canada (“AI”) to ask whether Mr. Craig is, as reported in the Ming Pao, working for AI and whether AI supported Sheng Xue. Ms. Gloria Nafziger, AI’s China Observer, told us clearly that AI had made no declaration of support for Sheng Xue and that Mr. Michael Craig is not and has never been AI’s China Observer. He was only a volunteer, and left AI a year ago. Mr. Craig’s words and deeds can only represent himself, not Amnesty International.

Though Mr. Michael Craig is not staff member of AI, we still agree with his suggestion to urge the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency (“CSIS”) to intervene in the case of Sheng Xue. We also suggest that CSIS and other departments concerned launched an overall investigation of the accusations of Sheng Xue, relating to false invoices, immigration fraud, embezzlement of donations and funds, which are not insignificant amounts of money. We suggest that translators be hired to turn our Chinese texts into English as references for the investigation. We are sure that the true colors of Sheng Xue will sooner or later be known to the public.

By all means, the authorities should investigate the pornographic, lurid and violent harassment and threats Sheng Xue claims to have experienced, and the persons responsible should be punished. We do not condone such behavior, and we would welcome justice against the persons who sent these to her, especially since they were done in fake social media accounts set up in some of our names to falsely implicate us.

In the announcement of the press conference and in the joint statement “In Recognition of Sheng Xue”, an investigation report is mentioned. To be clear, this bilingual so-called report undertaken by FDC Canadian branch has no credibility and no independence. In fact, facing the questioning from members of FDC and pro-FDC friends, Sheng Xue enlisted only her supporters and allies for the so-called investigation. Those who have actually been involved in the cases and those who questioned Sheng Xue were not asked for evidence, and their positions were not verified. No persons with credibility from the Chinese community in Toronto were invited to either investigate or observe the investigation. This report is an inside job to influence public opinion and is seen as a farce within the Chinese community of Toronto. To gain fame and attention by deception has become part of Sheng Xue’s life and this sham report is only one of the many examples of her misconduct. 

In the joint statement it was written: “Sheng Xue as a writer and reporter (as well as a special correspondent of Radio Free Asia for seventeen years), has won several awards, including the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee commemorative medal, Canadian National Magazine Award Correspondents Association and the Canadian depth investigative Journalism Award. “

While she may claim to be a reporter, Sheng Xue has been exposed to be a reporter without journalistic morals. She created news and quite often she made reports about herself as a Chinese democrat. She is no longer associated with Radio Free Asia. As to the awards mentioned, the co-winner and main writer of the investigative reporting Mr. Tom Fennell has been intentionally omitted, and Sheng Xue has never credited his name in any of the context related to this prize.

Regarding the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, it is described in Wikipedia as “a commemorative medal created in 2012 to mark the sixtieth anniversary of Elizabeth II's accession to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms”. The Canadian medal was handed out to 60,000 citizens and permanent residents of Canada. It is not a special award to Sheng Xue as a writer or reporter, as indicated in the Statement.

It is with great sadness that we read Mr. Craig Offman’s article on the ‘regal’ Sheng Xue, published on March 4, 2016 by The Globe and Mail. Many of us have known Ms. Sheng Xue for years, and find it unfortunate that a respected newspaper such as The Globe and Mail appears to have been so easily manipulated. Ms. Sheng Xue has successfully created a distraction by claiming harassment by us as agents of the Chinese Communist Party in order to not only discredit our ongoing work, but also to draw attention away from the accusations of criminal misconduct made against her by her former associates, colleagues, and friends. By taking up the flag of support for Ms. Sheng Xue, the Globe and Mail has helped her to perpetuate the false narrative that will allow her to continue not only to hide, but also to do further damage to the Chinese democracy movement.

We, the undersigned, would like to emphasize that while we reside in different corners of the globe and may not be “highly organized”, what brings us together is our common pursuit for justice. We would welcome a thorough investigation into all of Ms Sheng Xue's claims, as we are confident that any such independent investigation will lead to the exposure of her misrepresentations, unethical behavior, and criminal misconduct.

Date: March 10, 2016

Co-signers （In alphabetical order）:

Bian Hexiang 

- Democratic activist blacklisted by the Chinese communist regime;
- Executive member of the Central Committee of Chinese Social Democratic Party;
- Chairman of the Coalition of Guards For American Values, Inc.;
- Living at present in New York City, USA.

Chen Yiran

- Witness of the Tiananmen Massacre;
- Immigrated to Canada in 1999;
- Volunteer for FDC Canada since 2003;
- Former board member and bookkeeper of the Shiyuan Project;
- Living at present in Toronto, Canada.

Fei Liangyong

- Graduate of Tsinghua University with a major in nuclear reactor engineering;
- Relocated to Germany in 1987 for further studies at Munich University of Technology;
- Active member of the Chinese democracy movement since 1989;
- Served as Chair of FDC headquarters from 2003 to 2012;
- One of the founders of the register NGO “Forum for a Democratic China and Asia” and board director since 2006;
- Living at present in Germany.

Lu Decheng

- Dissident and one of the three protesters during the 1989 democracy movement who threw eggs filled with pigment to the Portrait of Mao Zedong on the Tiananmen Gate.
- Sentenced in 1989 to 16 years in jail for committing crimes of counterrevolution.
- Left China for Thailand in 2004
- Arrived in Canada on April 11, 2006
- Living at present in Canada.

Liu Shaofu

- Graduate of East China Normal University in Shanghai;
- Participated in the Chinese democracy movement in 1978;
- One of the founders of the underground magazine “Voice of Democracy” ;
- Important member of the overseas Chinese democracy movement in Canada since 1991;
- Serving as the speaker of FDC headquarters since November 2012;
- Living at present in Toronto, Canada.

Liu Xiaodong 

- Freelancer with the pen name “San Mei” (meaning the third sister);
- Author of the book ” Lost in Troubled Times” and over 200 articles denouncing totalitarian systems;
- Dissident blacklisted by the Chinese communist regime;
- Living at present in Chicago, USA.

Peng Xiaoming

- Former editor at Shanghai Literature & Art Publishing House after graduating from Shanghai Fudan Univesity;
- Relocated to Germany to study at University of Bonn for cultural anthropology;
- Editor of the Chinese European Post, the last Chinese newspaper in Europe that is independent and free from censorship;
- Active member of the Chinese democracy movement since 1989;
- Serving as Vice-Chair of FDC headquarters since 2012;
- Living at present in Germany.

Su Junyan

- Graduated from the Department of History of Beijing University;
- Former research associate at the Institute of Ethnic History of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences before leaving China;
- Author of the documentary book “The bloody China” ;
- Author of over 530 commentaries about China issues known as “Su Ming Commentaries” ;
- Former board member of FDC headquarters and Vice-Chair of FDC Canada branch;
- Living at present in Toronto, Canada.

Xiao Hong

- Freelancer with the pen name “Xiao Ping Tou”;
- Researcher of the history of the Chinese Cultural Revolution;
- Living at present in Denmark.

Zhu Rui

- Writer and novelist with writings focused on Tibet issues;
- Publications include novels, essays and political commentaries;
- Living at present in Canada.

Man kwong Han 

－Member of the Federation for a Democratic China (FDC) since 1990, one of the earliest board members of FDC Toronto subsection;
－Present member of the Supervisory Council of FDC Canada branch;

－ Living currently in Toronto, Canada.

陈卫珍： 关于《民运黑洞》 不得不再说几句

前几天收到一个好心朋友的来信，要我退出这个争议，免得被攻击和诽谤，但是昨晚看到李方3月2日发表在博讯上的文章，小女子感到不得不再说几句。

在这篇文章中，李方把《婆娑谍影》和《民运黑洞》这两本书捆绑在一起来定论，显然故意采用了以假乱真、混淆是非的障眼法。

《婆娑谍影》这本书我没有仔细读完，但是我能明显看出来，这就是中共抹黑的书。与《民运黑洞》相比较，有三点明显不同。

1，《婆娑谍影》著书的目的，是直接针对众多的民运人士，几乎把民运群体中的一些活跃分子一网打尽。至于其中的文字，非常粗糙而低劣，情节更是让人能看出来是在捏造。有的民主人士口碑良好，即便怎么抹黑，民众也是不会相信的；有些民运人士，虽然口碑不太好，但要说是中共间谍，打死也是让人难以相信的。可以说，只要稍微有一点分辨能力的民主派人士以及大众，是能够判断出《婆娑谍影》这本书是出自中共的手笔。但《民运黑洞》不同，这本书是针对一些罪恶现象，从纵深和宽广两个维度进行了论证和考察。这本书里的大部分文章，我们看不到故意抹黑和造谣的痕迹。这些有理有据的文字，是在竭力澄清一个道理，在努力纠正一个错误，是在想方设法展现一个事情的真相。

2，执笔者不同。《婆娑谍影》这本书的作者就只有一个，叫贾书祺，这还不一定是真名实姓。但《民运黑洞》这本书作者众多，实名实姓，并公开表示愿意为自己的言行承担法律责任。且身份特殊。有的是当事人多年的朋友，在一天拍案而起、割袍断义，如陈毅然和刘邵夫；有的是多年的同事，有一天幡然醒悟、划清界线、口诛笔伐，如彭小明和费良勇；有的打过几次交道，决然终止关系，避而远之，如朱瑞和三妹；还有的远在千里之外，长期跟踪观察，如小平头。这是本人所见过的对政治人物所进行的指控文字，可信度还是相当大、所揭露的问题也是比较严重的一起案件。其实单单就作者群体的组成，就在相当程度上已经说明了问题的本质。

3，成书的过程不同。《婆娑谍影》这本书，是在一个固定的时间段里完成，显然是某个间谍经过一段时间搜索信息，然后捏造想象而写出来的，而《民运黑洞》这本书，则是在一个长度的时间过程中沉淀下来的。就人类社会谣言的传播规律，一般来说，当一个人生活中仅仅是出了一些小毛病或是偶尔发生的过犯，可能会出现一个阶段的谣言，或者是小范围内的谣言，当一些“谣言”以大规模、长时间并以不同的角度在不同的地域一直盛行不衰时，这就应当引起人们对这些文字的重视，这其实在告诉人们这些言论，最大可能并不是谣言，而是事实，且是一些持续不断在重复的罪恶行为。

显然，把《民运黑洞》这本书，与《婆娑谍影》捆绑在一起来下定论，显然是李方所采用的以假乱真、混淆是非的障眼法。

在文中，李方分析了《婆娑谍影》是中共的杰作。对，《婆娑谍影》确实是中共的杰作，就在读者的认同心理中，他笔锋一转、顺水推舟，说，中共的另一部杰作，是《民运黑洞》。在其行文中，我们能看到他移花接木、以假乱真的伎俩是相当娴熟而高明，很容易让一些普通民众被迷惑。但他自以为是、聪明过度，低估了许多读者的判断分析能力。

在本人阅读《民运黑洞》这本书的过程中，我一直在思考一个问题，这些作者都仅仅是为了造谣和抹黑一个无辜的人而写下这些文字吗？这个说法如何能成立呢？更为关键的是，我后来在网上找不到任何指控可以表明这些作者的品质和人格都是如此恶劣。要知道，对绝大部分正常的人性而言，要去花时间和精力去无辜造谣、栽赃陷害一个人，是做不到的。如果把这个推到老共身上让他来背书，然后把这些作者都打成是中共特务，在我的眼里，这个行为倒是另一个活生生的明证，证明了这本书的指证就是正确的，因为这个行为本身就是书中所指证的当事人之恶劣行为之一。更何况，一个头脑稍微清醒的读者和民众就能判断，这如何能成立呢？你看这些作者平时的言行，哪一个像在网络上曾经活跃或者是正在活跃的中共五毛的素质和特征？难道中共在一夜之间提高了五毛的素质，改变了五毛的特征？再说了，要说中共单单为了抹黑并打击一个海外民运界的活跃分子，花费巨大的精力、心血和成本，在多年前就把这些人一个个安插在当事人的身边，只等着有一天对其进行抹黑和攻击，这种说法真的是过于低估老共的水平，更是过于抬高盛雪。就目前盛雪在海外民运界的地位和对中国的民主事业所曾经发挥的作用，还远远够不上老共如此处心积虑、花费成本来抹黑的资格。更何况，有很多的文字揭露盛雪的名声，很多程度上是靠着哗众取宠、虚假作秀的方式来博得的。至于国内外民运界对她的恶评如潮，其实早就已经开始了。

一个在一些人思想中流行的非常滑稽而幼稚的推定：要是有人对你质疑越多，就说明你越是优秀或者是功劳越大。如果按照这个逻辑，目前来说，中国社会质疑中共的有识之士已经非常之多，今后还可能越来越多，那么我们就应该推定，这说明中共越是优秀或者越是功劳巨大？显然，当民众对一个公众人物的质疑之声越来越多时，确实存在一种情况，是因为当事人过于优秀因而招致嫉妒而引发的，但这并不是全部情况，甚至可以说这只是一种非常特殊的情况。还有一个非常普遍的情况是：当质疑声音逐渐增多时，是说明这个公众人物已经出问题了，或者是自身的问题不断暴露出来了。有的是因为当事人恶劣到了已经成为过街老鼠而遭遇人人喊打，有的却是因为自身已经臭不可闻，仿佛成了敞口的公共厕所而遭人质疑……

在这篇文章中，李方摆出一副要为受屈者鸣不平的姿态，把《民运黑洞》这本书里所有作者的质疑和指证，用完全自我为中心的思维模式，给出一个笼统、简单而武断的推定：这些人都是在撒谎，重复地撒谎，妄图通过“谎言重复一千遍就成真理”的方式来抹黑盛雪。但是，他没有针对书中所指证的具体问题给出详细而有说服力的论证和反驳，他们是如何撒谎，为什么在撒谎？这让我想起中共惯用的一个给民主人士和维权人士定罪的方式：你们已经触犯了国家法律，你们妄图颠覆国家政权。但是从来就没有给出有说服力的论证，维权人士究竟犯了什么国家法律？究竟是用什么方式来颠覆国家政权？

其实，没有多少人会真正认为谎言重复一千遍就是真理，只有中共这种惯用谎言治国的统治者才会有这种思维模式。谎言就是谎言，真理就是真理，谎言怎么重复都不会变成真理的。只能说，有的谎言重复一千遍能让有些人误以为是真理。更加完整一点的说法还需要加上一句：有的谎言，即便重复一万遍都不可能会有人相信是真理。李方如何有资格下判断，这些指证都是谎言？再说，究竟哪些是谎言，哪些是真理，民众自有自己的判断。对于《民运黑洞》这本书中所提出的各种有理有据的指证，李方也是轻描淡写一笔带过，认为那不过是“听隔壁大妈，家长里短数落邻居这不是那不是，读完了你就记不住到底她在说什么。”既然如此无足轻重，那又何必因为这本书而对编者和作者进行如此恶毒的攻击和辱骂呢？甚至对读者发表真实的读后感，都会像是被击中要害，暴跳如雷呢？

本人在阅读之后，感到书中所指证和质疑的问题非常严重，甚至是无法想象的。有一个阶段，我百思不得其解的是，这么严重的问题，如果说当事人的家人不说，为什么朋友也不说？朋友不说，上级怎么也不说？上级不说，怎么下级也不说？这么多严重的罪，竟然就重复地犯，持续不断地犯！你要说，那是因为根本就没有，那些人都是在造谣，这种死猪不怕开水烫的强词夺理，如何拗得过生活本身的铁定规律？这还好，亡羊补牢为时未晚，终于周围最亲近的朋友和同事感到不能继续纵容，必须要进行督责和纠正了。这诸多罪中的任何一样，要是发生在教会，早就已经得到了纠正和处理了。从这个角度，我们能看到中国目前许多民主人士，对罪的敏感性是远远不够。在这个角度，我希望越来越多的民主人士能够归信基督信仰。然而，让人感到不可理喻的是，这些严重的问题，在李方的眼睛里都认为无足轻重。这个思维模式也让我想起中共集团，中国社会目前已经是病入膏肓，然而这些权力掌握者对各种严重的社会问题，从来就是轻描淡写、一笔带过。这个所谓的博讯记者李方，从他对待《民运黑洞》这本书中所质疑的各种问题的态度，能够看出他从来都没有真正思考过海外民运究竟如何才能走出困境和低迷这些重大而严肃的问题。

当我看到李方在文中所表达的那些仿佛充满正义的豪言壮语时，就感到滑稽得要喷饭。大家可以看一看他在私下邮件里对我所进行的低级下流的谩骂，我想请问一句，一个关心中国民主事业、浩然正气激荡于胸的人，会可能对一个素未谋面的女性用这种低级下流的话语进行辱骂吗？而且还不只一次。即便我与他在政见上不同，也是不可能会采用这种方式。更何况，我只是发表了一些真实观点而已。俗话说阅人要看细节。就从这个小小的细节，读者可以判断这个人究竟心中有没有正义？如果一个人从其生活细节中表现出来的是卑鄙猥琐的小人，那么这人的本质就是一个小人，豪言壮语则只是喊出来的口号而已。马克思喊出了为全世界人民谋幸福的宏大口号，可他连自己与仆女私生的儿子都恶待，比凶残的猛虎还不如。在共产主义体系中全是这么一些把大口号挂在嘴上的恶人和小人。就基督信仰对人性的考察，一个人对宇宙真智慧之探索的深度和广度，与其内在生命本质的纯度和热度成正比的。人性中所有美善的品格是浑然一体不能分割的。有些人可能会在某些方面出一些小问题，但是一个人的内在品质如果已经表现出严重的堕落和异化，那么就不要指望从他的智性中能产生对于社会性事件具备真知灼见的智慧和判断。从这个人对朱瑞和我的辱骂习惯，只要条件具备，完全可能是一个性暴力犯罪者。而且内心极其阴险狡诈，完全是共产邪灵体系中的仆役。

如果在几天前，我还认为他极大可能是中共间谍，但是看了他在这篇文章中所娴熟运用的欺骗伎俩、玩弄手腕的花招，能看出来完全是被老共严格培训出来的，现在我可以铁板板地下判断，几个月前我所收到的邮件中关于郭宝隆的通告没有错，这个李方就是中共间谍。中共间谍李方，在这篇文章中把所有《民运黑洞》的作者定性为“中共五毛”，正是中共一惯来所运用的贼喊捉贼、倒打钉耙、瞒天过海的伎俩。

给我滚回北京中南海，中共的走狗和草包！说实话，小女子我根本就不怕你们，任凭你们怎么攻击污蔑我好了。在这之前我与民运群体毫无干涉，在这个阶段之后我也会再次退回教会系统。你们的任何漫天造谣，对我都是毫无意义的。因为读者一看就知道，我根本就不是一个民运群体中的人。你们有精力和时间，你们去造谣好了，请便！更何况，有圣灵如火墙围护我，你们这些恶毒的攻击火箭根本就伤不到我。

不要质问我算什么东东？我就是在这个阶段，被上帝派遣的小使女，来揭露你们这些共产邪灵体系中的小鬼们的。

郑重宣告：以后所有的攻击邮件，即便是发私信，我也会全部公开，让那些善良的人们认清你们的本质，然后与你们划清界线。

在这里我想跟所有有志于政治的基督徒弟兄姐妹、真正的民主人士以及正直善良的人们说一句话，你们的对手，是目前世界上最厚黑最狡诈最恶毒的一个集团。毛贼把中国古代兵书烂熟于心，并把古今中外的用兵之道融会贯通，加上其没有道德底线的邪恶品质，在国共两党的内战中，把出身于正规黄埔军校并治国的雄才大略远远胜过他的蒋介石玩得团团转。在中共近70年对中国人民的统治中，各种厚黑的手腕也是运用得炉火纯青。中共集团是被共产邪灵所掌控的群体，背后是一个巨大的撒旦体系。撒旦和其仆役是受造的灵体，在相当程度上是具备能力和聪明的，但他们唯一无法模仿上帝的是圣洁和美善。所以，在魔鬼体系中培训出来的走狗，也是能在一定程度上展现聪明和能力的，能说一些似是而非、貌似深刻的理论，但是他们都会有一个容易识别的特征，那就是恶劣的品质。在这些恶劣的品质中，很明显的一个特征是狡诈，其次是狠毒。因此，辨别中共走狗，比较可行的路径是，看生命品质。前面的争战艰苦卓绝，真的求上帝赐给你们丰丰富富聪明的灵和智慧的灵、能力和谋略的灵、知识和敬畏真善美的心，赐你们火眼金睛，识别出这些中共走狗的本质，穿透他们所制造的各种假象，击破他们所玩弄的各种手段和花招。

下面我回到《民运黑洞》这本书，谈几个问题。

1，《民运黑洞》这本书所传递的信息，是否百分之百正确？

作为一个百分之百的读者和普通大众，实话实说，到现在为止，我也不认为能达到百分之百的正确率。因为这其中涉及的面那么广，卷入的环节那么多，要做到百分之百的准确率是有难度的，因此我认为在细节上会有出入是肯定的。以我自己这么长时间并从各个角度的阅览，有的发到我这里的文章，是《民运黑洞》这本书没有编入的，也是小平头的网站上没看到的，有一篇是来自澳洲的，作者根本就与费良勇和彭小明他们没有任何关系。我阅读了，但我并没有传给我周围任何一个朋友。我个人判断，《民运黑洞》这本书，应该会有80%——90%的正确率。但即便只有这个程度的正确率，就其中所揭露的问题，对于海外民运事业来说，真的已经是非常严重了。我个人认为，所有站出来指证和揭露的人，真的是抱着对中国民主事业的热爱。如果没有这些人勇敢地站出来指证并揭露海外民运圈子里这么大的罪恶，真的是整个海外民运的耻辱和悲哀。

2，如何看待这些在细节上的偏差？

在一个民主国家中，民众或者是在野党，他们具备督责和揭露政府官员身上所存在的各种问题的权利，但是并没有被要求，他们所作的各种指证和揭露的内容必须保证百分之百的正确。如果有了这个附加的要求和条件，那么民众以及在野党对政府官员的民主监督之权利其实就会被架空。因为，处在他们的位置，是不可能会做到对政府官员进行百分之百准确的督责和指证的。比如就某个总统的婚外恋问题。民众和反对派，只能从自己的角度和能力所能获得的信息和迹象来判断总统是否有婚外恋，并采取民主监督的行动。但他们如何能做到百分之百的准确率呢？他们如何能够在有一个时刻把奸夫淫妇捉奸在床或者在总统的房间里安装摄像头呢？显然，如果要求民众或者在野党必须要具备百分之百的准确率才可以指证和督责，那么就是把他们民主监督的权利给剥夺了。事实上，在一个民主国家里，民众或者在野党只需要负责递交指证和揭露的材料，至于材料是否如实地反映事实，是由国家相关部门来调查核实，然后根据调查的情况，对总统作出处罚的决定。即便指证的材料与事实有偏差，是不会被法律定罪的。

到现在为止，那些对《民运黑洞》这本书的作者进行辱骂和攻击的支持者，他们说是在从事民主事业，事实上压根就不懂何为民主监督。他们是把盛雪放在了与这些作者同一个职位上来下结论。事实上，在这些文章中反复强调的是，盛雪作为一个民主组织的领导，其为人处事和人格作风，会对中国的海外民运事业产生巨大的破坏力。如果盛雪不是一个民主组织的领导，没有人会管你的私生活问题、还是说谎的问题、还是自我吹嘘的问题。因此，《民运黑洞》根本就不是攻击和污蔑的问题，是关乎到民主监督和言论自由的问题。

如果海外民运圈是一个相对有组织有系统的团体，那么《民运黑洞》这本书的作者，只需要把这本书递交给相关有公信力的机构，然后由他们去负责调查研究，然后作出裁决。

但因为海外民运圈作为整体很散漫，各个政党自立山头、各自为营，没有一个相对具备公信力的协会来解决相关问题，因此，在被督责者和督责者之间就只能表现为旷日持久的口水战。他们不断地发邮件，根本就不是像李方所解读的，邮件发一千遍就能杀人这么卑劣，相反的，这乃是在现实的处境下，为纠正在海外民运圈中所存在的罪恶现象，以及督责一个有着严重问题的民主组织的领导，被逼无奈而采取的原始而简单的下策。除此外，还有什么办法能把这股污水浊流止住呢？

就这个角度，我认同费良勇先生所说的，这并不是民阵内斗，而是一场海外民运事业中的正气与邪恶之间的争斗。但因为作为基督徒的视角，两方都是非基督徒民主人士，从某个角度都还只是罪人与罪人之间的争执，双方都需要到上帝的面前悔改，才能看到自己里面根深蒂固的罪性。更何况灵魂的得救，是我最为关注的。这是我个人为什么把自己锁定在本位，只想做一个旁观者来关注，以免把真理高度的审视，降到了人类普世文明体系中的审视高度，同时也不想让自己的批评过于犀利，以给我所不认同的那一方带来过于沉重的伤害。但是我也清楚知道，即便撇开了绝对真理这个高深的参照，在人类普世文明的体系内，正气与邪恶之间又还是有区别的，甚至是有巨大的差别。因此，在非基督徒民运群体中，这种正气与邪恶之间的差别还是存在，同时这种较量和博弈，对于现实的宪政民主还是有着重要意义，因此当我发现到一些非常荒唐的做法，不得不表达自己作为旁观者的观点，后来我发现问题的严重性远远超过我的判断。

3，什么叫文革式的批判？

前几天，很多人指责《民运黑洞》这本书是对盛雪进行文革式批判。我感到这些人真的是无知而可笑。我想问，究竟什么才是文革式批判？如果不懂的话，可以翻开历史书看一看。在中共十年荒唐的文革恶剧中，那些文革式的批判，究竟是怎么搞的？在那些批判中，会有这么有据有理的分析吗，如彭小明的文章？会有这么言正词厉、苦口婆心的告诫吗，如刘邵夫的文章？会有这么朴素真实的举证吗，如陈毅然的文章？……如果说这些文章，就得被判定为文革式的批判，那么祝贺中国人民，在我们的历史上就从来没有发生过文革式的批判！究竟什么是文革式批判？那就是不分青红皂白，乱扣罪名，乱打棍子，强词夺理，没有任何的自我反省和自我光照，也或者说根本就没有这种往自己身上审视的能力。我看那些以反对文革式批判为理由而对《民运黑洞》的作者和编者所进行的谩骂和攻击，这才是真正的文革式批判。每次旁观到这里，我发现就在这一群所谓的追求民主和自由的群体中，最基本的正确和谬误完全颠倒。就连我这个仅仅发表阅读观点的旁观者也未能遭殃，可见这是何等猖狂的文革式批判！我说句实话，要是让这帮家伙掌握了国家权力，绝对会翻出比现在的习建平习万岁还要巨大得多的文革狂潮。

4，朱瑞有没有权利摆出“要正视中国民运所存在的问题”这样的观点并作出行动和努力？

有人曾不断挖苦，朱瑞有没有权利提出“要正视中国民运所存在的问题”以及她为此所作出的努力。我倒想问一问，中国的民运有没有问题，尤其是海外民运？如果说没有问题，那我实话告诉你们，这完全是愚蠢的掩耳盗铃、自欺欺人罢了。这完全就是中共的思维和心态的写照。对于中国目前社会所存在的各种问题，中共就从来没有正视过，更没有想着如何去解决问题，当然也是没有任何能力解决。他们现在的心态就是：罪恶吧，嚣张吧， 享受吧，反正明天就要死了！而认为中国的民运尤其是海外民运没有问题的人们的心态就是：堕落吧，异化吧，自我满足吧，反正明天就要完全沦陷了！

既然有问题，而且有大问题，那么谁有资格来提出我们要正视问题并尝试着来解决问题？让老共来提？老共说，要正气你们没有，就厚黑比我老共有过之而不及，但我老共手里有钞票有子弹，因此尽快招安吧。不是老共，那么还有谁有资格来提？让那些大名鼎鼎的所谓名运大佬们？就别提了！看看这些人，26年的海外民运究竟在做了什么？历史上的越王勾践，为了复兴越国打败吴国，尚且还知道卧薪尝胆、刻苦己心，而这些人又是如何做呢？说得难听一点，打着救国救民的幌子，陶醉在英雄豪杰的臆想中，管不住眼睛、管不住嘴巴、管不住自己的裤腰带。这其中很多人都是经历过天安门广场那场苦难的。今天我一个普通大众，一个女流之辈，真的想质问一句：你们这些所谓的民运大佬们，你们怎么对得住天安门广场上死难的先烈？怎么对得住依然在那片土地上默默地永生默默地死去的人民？怎么对得住国家和民众的重托？那么还有谁有资格来提来说来做？让那些臭名昭著的所谓民运领导来提？……

今天我想说，谁真正已经意识到了这个问题，谁的思维已经触及到了这个高度，谁就有资格来摆出这样的观点。谁在身体力行地做，谁就有资格配得民众的支持和尊敬。是上天赋予了他们这个权利，是良心和道义赋予了他们这个权利。你们不信这个邪，那么就来打赌看一看，最终被历史和人民所抛弃所审判的，究竟会是谁？反正我相信，再过十年或者是几十年，你们和我以及《民运黑洞》这本书的作者和编者，都还会活着的！作为基督徒，我绝不会咒诅任何人，我只是祷告并盼望，那些被罪恶所捆绑的人们，能够真正反省自己身上的问题，认罪悔改，这是唯一的出路！

转自匡扶正义电邮群组

关于盛雪问题的公开信

我们是关心和参与中国民主运动的海外华裔民主人士，我们是质疑和揭露盛雪问题的海外华裔公民。首先，我们不得不阐明这个不言而喻的道理：作为民主国家的公民和合法纳税人，我们有权利质疑民主中国阵线现任主席、公众人物盛雪，我们有权利揭露她的滥权、账目不清、移民欺诈等严重问题。作为公众人物的盛雪，毋庸置疑地应该受到监督和质疑。有人在未经任何独立和公正的调查之前就把我们据实揭发和质疑公众人物盛雪的正当行为斥为“诬蔑和攻击”，这是对言论自由和公民权利的无视和无知。

我们还要说明，我们从不认识张向阳。据说，他自2015年11月开始在渥太华国会山庄前举牌检举盛雪至今达三个月之久，公开指称盛雪是中国间谍。不管张向阳此举的动机如何，不管是否有人在背后支持他，他的行动与我们对盛雪的所有质疑和揭发没有任何关系。但令我们疑惑和不解的是，张向阳三个月来拒绝接受任何采访，也不为自己的指称行为举证。与此同时，盛雪利用一切机会，极力想把我们与张向阳捆绑在一起，并指称中共在幕后操纵，令我们怀疑她又在制造骗局，转移目标。

我们也注意到，早在2001年被美国独立非盈利机构“詹姆斯通基金会”质疑，一直受中共直接或间接控制的《明报》，从2016年2月21日至3月7日，十数天内，在《明报加东版》以《明报专讯》栏目多达四次登出明显倾向盛雪的专讯。

2016年3月3日的《明报专讯》的标题是：《特赦组织挺盛雪非中国间谍，將报警兼促情報局调查指控》。此专讯中提到挺盛雪的组织人是特赦国际的麦克.克里格（Michael Craig），专讯还表示，有十数人定於3月4日下午2時在多伦多市中心举行支持盛雪的新闻会。

2016年3月4日，在多伦多举行支持盛雪新闻会的当天，网上、电邮和微信群中便发出支持盛雪的声明和名为《表彰盛雪女士》的有十来个人签名的联名声明。联名声明中对盛雪肉麻的“美妙的赞词”令我们感觉像是回到了崇毛造神的文革时代。

针对盛雪发在争鸣平台上的这个新闻会消息和联名声明，一位叫刘希羽的跟贴这样一针见血地写到：“判断问题需要常识。周永康完全有能力找到100万人为他背书，说他是伟大、无私的人，这能证明周永康无罪吗？希特勒更有能力找人为他背书。这种把戏不管用！最重要的是要正面回答问题。不正面回答问题，让不是司法部门的人证明自己不是间谍，让人签名说自己是好人，统统都是欲盖弥彰的闹剧。”

支持盛雪新闻会的通知表示，“表彰盛雪联名声明”是“一份代表关注中国人权和公义的组织发表的声明”。我们请问，你们代表哪些组织？这些组织以什么法律方式授权你们代表？你们有正式的法律授权文件吗？如果此联合声明涉及法律，是你们个人负责？还是你们代表的组织负责？

这篇联名声明一开篇就写到：“一个高度有组织化的人群正在用造谣诬蔑的手段，企图将盛雪女士边缘化，使之被逼入孤立境地，将她击倒，因为盛雪女士是针对中国专制暴政最有力的批评家之一。”我们请问，你们这些说法的依据是什么？是依据自己的印象？还是依据盛雪的一面之词？这些依据有多少是符合事实的？

我们还注意到，“表彰盛雪联名声明”的十来个签名人中，有几位母语为英语的加拿大人，我们请问，这几位加拿大签名人是否读了那些我们揭露盛雪的中文文章？为什么你们会在一份满篇语法错误、表达混乱不清的英文声明上签字？

我们中国人有句古训：兼听则明，偏信则暗。意思是说，不能只听一面之词。这一古训流传千年，也同样适用于盛雪的问题。如果你们没有听到另一面的说辞，怎能仅凭自己的感觉或是盛雪的一面之词来下判断而肉麻地表彰盛雪呢？

揭露盛雪的几个主要作者都是光明正大地以真名实姓发表揭露文章，他们揭发盛雪的问题都是事实真相。五个主要揭发人是费良勇先生，彭小明先生，刘劭夫先生，陈毅然女士，朱瑞女士。这五位揭发人中的三位男士都是民阵老成员，朱瑞女士是专写西藏风土人情的小说作家，陈毅然女士为民阵做了十数年义工，她于2003便开始成为多伦多民阵的义工，曾多年担任多伦多民阵“十元捐助计划”的理事及财务负责人。

三位揭发盛雪的男士中：费良勇先生是任期最长的民阵总部主席（第七至第十届 2003.10-2012.10），而且是全球支持中国和亚洲民主化论坛的创办人和法人代表。刘劭夫先生1978年就投身中国民主运动，他1991年7月加入最早的中国海外民运团体——中国民主团结联盟。刘劭夫1993年1月担任民联阵总部监委，并兼多伦多分部主任委员，2002年开始参与民阵工作，并担任民阵加拿大分部发言人， 于2012年11月担任民阵总部发言人至今。彭小明先生投身中国民运20多年，他的家族中有7人被中共打成右派受到迫害，他的父亲在狱中被迫害致死。他长期担任全德中国学生学者联合会主席，并且是现任民阵副主席。

这里还要提及的是中国历史学者苏君砚先生，他曾是民阵总部理事，加拿大分部副主席。盛雪向他派捐，并散布谣言说，苏君砚先生出钱是为了买民阵加拿大主席的职位。盛雪的滥权和腐败与中国民主事业背道而驰，苏君砚于2013年7月愤然公开声明退出民阵。

以上六位人士均被盛雪打成中共特务。

民主中国阵线组织从1989年成立至今经历了十一届主席任选，唯独盛雪这个2012年底才上任的第十一届主席一上任不久就被诸多人士质疑和揭发，而且主要揭发人竟是与她相识二十几年的民阵同道。她上任至今仅仅三年时间，民阵组织就完全陷于瘫痪。

盛雪的任期本应到2014年10月结束，但她以私事为由拒绝按时召开换届改选大会，后来，未经民阵理监事会通过决议，擅自让其亲信张小刚操控召开会议。民阵副主席彭小明、唐元隽、秘书长潘永忠、监事会主席陈联昆、前主席费良勇（现任理事）、前监事会主席张健（现任监事）以及许多理监事都没有参加此次会议。副主席梁友灿虽然参加了会议，但主张推迟召开换届改选大会。在这种情况下，盛雪炮制了一个不经选举便使现任主席顺延一届的决议。这种做法国民党和共产党历史上都未曾见过。此决议一出，即遭到民阵许多重要成员的反对。一些民阵成员要求盛雪辞职。不料，她不仅坚持不辞，而且发起对质疑者的攻击，甚至蛊惑她的亲信对这些人进行人身威胁。这些恐怖手段引发对她更大的质疑和揭发声浪，致使民阵组织的正常运作瘫痪。这难道不值得“关心人权和公义的亲爱的朋友们” 深思去问个为什么吗？

民阵组织的瘫痪和组织成员奋起揭发质疑盛雪，起因均来自盛雪本人的各种不轨行为，可遗憾的是，麦克.克里格等先生把这个现象说成是“他们的举措显示似乎他们是中国政府的支持者”“到底是什么事情弄得中国政府如此气急败坏？”“我们邀请并鼓励那些攻击盛雪女士的人物从阴暗中走出来”，更遗憾的是，麦克.克里格等先生把名声败坏的盛雪说成“在加拿大没有任何一位投身中国人权和民主运动的活跃人士能够超过盛雪”，我们仅从这个满篇情绪化的“表彰盛雪联名声明”中举出以上几句，以此表明，话说过头了就不真实。即便盛雪对中国民主运动有所贡献，但也不能成为她滥权腐败的资本。这些联名声明作者如此盲目轻率地做出这种与事实差之千里的判断和结论，令我们分外吃惊。 

我们已有人专门给特赦国际加拿大多伦多分部办公室的人打电话询问:是否麦克.克里格先生（Michael Craig）如《明报》所言在特赦国际工作？是否特赦国际支持盛雪？特赦国际的中国观察员Ms. Gloria Nafziger明确回答到，特赦国际并没有支持盛雪。她还表示，《明报》中提到的克里格（Michael Craig），并不是特赦国际的中国观察员，他只是特赦国际的一名义工，他的行为只代表他自己，不代表特赦国际。

尽管麦克.克里格不是特赦国际的工作人员，我们仍非常赞同麦克.克里格（Michael Craig）先生提出的“促情報局調查”的建议。我们也建议加拿大情报机构全面调查盛雪的诸多贪腐问题，包括：开具假发票，办理假难民，募捐账目不清等等一系列对盛雪的质疑和揭发。我们建议调查部门提供中翻英的笔译人员，把我们揭发盛雪的中文文章翻译成英文做为参考。我们相信，盛雪的真实面目迟早会公之于众。

“表彰盛雪的联名声明”中所提及的伪造盛雪的黄色相片之事，应交由警方调查，调查出谁发的就由谁负法律责任。特别是，有人在推特上假冒刘劭夫先生的名义散发这些图片。我们反对这样的违法行为。但是，把伪造相片一事与揭发盛雪贪腐的正当行为捆绑在一起，并以伪造相片全盘否定揭发和质疑盛雪的正当行为，这完全是混淆视听。

由于“表彰盛雪联合声明”和支持盛雪新闻会的声明均提到“一份调查报告”，我们不得不对此作出说明，这份中英文双语版的民主中国阵线加拿大分部的所谓调查报告是一份毫无公信力和独立性的调查报告。它出笼的简单情况是这样：在外界对盛雪激烈揭露和指责的情况下，盛雪组织起几个她的支持者写了这份“调查报告”。此调查报告既没有向当事人调查核实，也没有向揭发人调查核实，更没有华人社区有公信力的人士参与，这份调查报告是一份自己调查自己、监守自盗的调查报告，这份充满荒唐结论的调查报告成为多伦多华人社区的一个大笑话。盛雪以造假手段欺世盗名已成为她生活的常态，这份调查报告仅是盛雪诸多滥权实例中的一例。

“表彰盛雪女士”的联名声明极力美言盛雪，言过其实地强调，她任“自由亚洲电台记者”时获得诸项奖项。事实上，盛雪只是自由亚洲电台的特约记者，非正式雇员。我们也从未见到自由亚洲电台网页公告过盛雪报道获奖的任何信息。相反，人所共知，她缺乏记者最起码的职业道德，新闻造假，常以锡红之名采访盛雪的形式自己采访自己。自由亚洲电台早已解聘盛雪。至于“加拿大全國杂志奖和加拿大記者協會深度新闻調查奖”，其实是一个合作奖，而盛雪长期以来故意隐瞒真正的主笔获奖人Tom Fennell先生的名字。

至于声明中提到的“The Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal”在维基百科中是这样描述的：这是2012年为了纪念伊丽莎白女王二世登基60周年在英联邦国家发放的银质纪念章。原来根本不是表彰盛雪联名声明中所说的钻石勋章。2012年在加拿大共有3万人获得这枚纪念章。而且，这和盛雪做为记者的身份毫无关系。

2016年3月4日， 一位名为Craig Offman的先生在《环球邮报》上发表了一篇关于“伟大的”盛雪的文章。我们中的多人都认识盛雪多年，像《环球邮报》这样受人尊重的报纸竟然刊载这样与事实大相径庭的文章，让我们深感遗憾。盛雪谎称我们是中共间谍，对她进行污蔑攻击，以此诋毁我们对她质疑的正当性，从而转移大家的视线。《环球邮报》这一举动，帮助盛雪散布了谎言，使得盛雪得以继续在中国民运中危害民主事业。

最后，我们特此说明，我们居住在西方世界不同国家和城市，我们没有组织，更谈不上 “高度组织化”。我们无法漠视盛雪的所作所为，为了维护正义而奋起揭露，因而走到一起。我们热切希望，加拿大有关部门能够彻底调查盛雪的严重问题。我们深信，独立公正的调查必将揭穿盛雪的各种假象，暴露她道德败坏和违法乱纪的行为。

二0一六年三月十日

簽名人（按姓名拼音排列）：

卞和祥，中共共产政权的政治反對派，中国社会民主党中央执行委員，美国守护者同盟主席，被中共列入黑名单。现住美国纽约。

陈毅然， “六四”亲历者。 1999年移民加拿大。2003年开始成为多伦多民阵的义工，曾任多伦多民阵“十元捐助计划”的理事及财务负责人6年。现居加拿大。

费良勇，毕业于清华大学核反应堆工程系。1987年到慕尼黑理工大学学习， 曾先后担任过全德中国学生学者联合会理事等职， 2003年至2012年连续四届担任民阵总部主席。2006年，费良勇发起成立全球支持中国和亚洲民主化论坛，担任理事长至今。现居德国。

鲁德成，中国著名政治异议人士，天安门三勇士之一。在1989年“六四”天安门民主运动期间，他向天安门毛泽东画像投掷鸡蛋，挑战极权统治，被以反革命罪判处十六年徒刑。获释后，于2006年初，被加拿大政府从泰国营救至加拿大，现定居加拿大。

刘劭夫，毕业于上海华东师范大学中文系。1978年参加中国民主运动并创办地下刊物《民主之声》，1991年7月到加拿大后成为海外民运组织的重要成员，2012年11月起担任民阵总部发言人。现居加拿大。

刘晓东，独立作家，异议人士，笔名三妹，《乱世迷途》一书的作者，撰写抨击极权制度文章两百多篇，被中共列入黑名单。现居美国芝加哥。

彭小明，毕业于上海复旦大学中文系，曾为上海文艺出版社编辑，后到波恩大学进修文化人类学，长期担任欧华导报编辑，此报是欧洲唯一直接对抗国内新闻封锁的留学生报刊。1990年参加民阵，现任民阵总部副主席。现居德国。

苏君砚，毕业于北京大学历史系。曾为中国社会科学院少数民族史研究所副研究员，著有长篇纪实《血色中国》，并针对中共问题发表530多篇《苏明评论》。曾任民阵总部理事，加拿大分部副主席。现居加拿大。

萧宏，笔名小平头，自由撰稿人兼文革研究者。不懈的真相追索者。现居丹麦。

朱瑞，小说作家。1997年起，专注写作西藏。出版过长篇小说、散文集、政论文集等多部作品。现居加拿大。

韩文光，1990年参加民主中国阵线，是民阵加拿大多伦多支部最早的理事之一，现任民阵加拿大分部监事会监事。现居加拿大多伦多。

An open letter to the signatories of the statement“In Recognition of Sheng Xue”

We are a group of overseas Chinese devoted to the Chinese democracy movement. We are citizens and taxpayers of our adopted homelands, where democracy prevails and citizens are entitled with the right to question any public figure. Ms. Sheng Xue (official name ZANG Xihong) is the present Chair of the Federation for a Democratic China (“FDC”), an NGO with members from many parts of the world. As a public figure, we therefore have the right to question Sheng Xue’s actions and conduct, specifically as they relate to her abuse of power, embezzlement of funds, and involvement in immigration fraud.

The response by Ms. Sheng and her supporters to our questioning has not been to defend her with facts, explanations or clarifications, but instead to label us as slanderers and to accuse us of launching personal attacks against her. Ignoring the facts and questions we have presented, while spurning independent and unbiased investigation into her activities is embracing ignorance.

Since November 2015 a person named Zhang Xiangyang has been protesting in front of the Parliament Hill in Ottawa, holding a placard and alleging that Sheng Xue is a Communist spy. What his motivation is and who is behind him, if anyone, has absolutely nothing to do with us and with our questioning of Sheng Xue. We do not know Mr. Zhang personally and have never had any contact with him. All the information that we know about Mr. Zhang Xiangyang is either written or forwarded by Sheng Xue. Interestingly, Mr. Zhang refuses to give any interviews and present any evidence to support his claims. At the same time, Ms. Sheng Xue uses any opportunity she can to incorrectly state that we and Mr. Zhang Xiangyang are of the same group and the CCP is pulling the strings. We would welcome Mr. Zhang Xiangyang to provide more details regarding his accusations, because without them, it all seems to be a very convenient distraction from the serious allegations made against Sheng Xue.

We have also noticed that from February 21 to March 7, 2016 the Chinese newspaper Ming Pao Eastern Edition in Toronto has published four (clearly biased) special reports in support of Sheng Xue. A 2001 report on Chinese media censorship by the Jamestown Foundation cited Ming Pao as one of four major overseas Chinese newspapers directly or indirectly controlled by Beijing.

Ming Pao’s report on March 3, 2016 was titled “Amnesty International finds nothing to indicate Sheng Xue to be a communist spy and will report to the police and the Intelligence Agency for investigation”. It was written that Mr. Michael Craig from Amnesty International supported Sheng Xue and would organize with a dozen supporters a press conference in Toronto city center at 2pm on March 4 on behalf of Sheng Xue.

On March 4, 2016 a joint statement titled “In Recognition of Sheng Xue” signed by a dozen people was widely spread through internet, emails and WeChat. The exaggerated use of words to praise her reminds us of the language used in the deification of Mao Zedong during the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

After receiving this statement, Liu Xiyu wrote a penetrating comment: Our judgments are based on common sense. Zhou Yongkang (an extremely corrupted Chinese official) might be capable of collecting a million signatures to praise his greatness and unselfishness. Could that be used to prove his innocence? Hitler could also have been capable of finding supporting signatories. However, these tricks do not help. What helps is to keep to the subject. Fencing around questions and trying to persuade non-judicial persons that one is not a spy, but instead more like a saint, does not pass the smell test in this case.

In the announcement of the press conference it was articulated that the joint statement had been signed by organizations concerned about the Chinese human rights and justice. We would like to ask a few questions here:

- Which organizations are you representing?
- In which way are you authorized to represent these organizations?
- Do you have any legal documents of authorization?
- If this statement is questioned of its legal liability, is it you or is it your organizations, who will take the responsibilities?

This joint statement begins: “Means of a highly organized people are using disinformation slander in an attempt to Ms. Sheng Xue marginalized, forced into making an isolated situation, she was knocked down, because Ms. Sheng Xue against Chinese tyranny of the most powerful critic one.”

After checking the Chinese version of the Statement, we are able to understand the English version and reformulate it in a grammatically correct way: “Highly organized groups are using disinformation and slander in an attempt to marginalize Ms. Sheng Xue, suppress her, and force her into isolation, because she fights against Chinese tyranny.”

We would like to ask a few questions here:

- What evidence has helped you to make the above conclusions?
- How many of them are personal impressions? How many of them are ex parte arguments from Sheng Xue? How many of them are facts?

Further, it has come to our attention that there are several Canadians who are native English speakers and signatories of this statement. To them we would like to ask:

- Have you ever read any of the Chinese articles written by any of us exposing the problems of Sheng Xue?
- Why would you put your name to the English version of the statement, which is so poorly written and contains so many grammatical errors that it is in some parts unintelligible? 

There is an old saying in China: Listen to both sides and you will be enlightened; heed only one side and you will be blinded. It is a wise old saying passed down thousands of years and can still be applied today to the case of Sheng Xue. We are of the opinion that it is unwise and surely biased of you to praise Sheng Xue without listening to the arguments of a group of independent individuals, who know the real Sheng Xue.

The main revealers of Sheng Xue’s problems are Mr. Fei Liangyong, Mr. Peng Xiaoming, Mr. Liu Shaofu, Ms. Chen Yiran and Ms. Zhu Rui. All of these names are real and legal names. There is nothing to be afraid of if the questioning is based on facts. The first three are all senior members of the Chinese democracy movement, while Zhu Rui is a novelist, and Chen Yiran is a former board member and bookkeeper of the Shiyuan Project (a project for helping families of political prisoners in China).

Mr. Fei Liangyong is the longest FDC Chairman ever served (Oct. 2003 - Oct. 2012) and the founder and legal representative of the registered NGO "Forum for a Democratic China and Asia".

Mr. Liu Shaofu has been engaging in the Chinese democracy movement since 1978. In July of 1991, he joined "The Chinese Alliance of Democracy (CAD)", the first overseas political opposition organization of mainland Chinese background since 1949. He was elected to be the member of the Supervisory Council of the Alliance for a Democratic China (“ADC”) headquarters and served as the Chair of the ADC Toronto branch. He has been participating in the FDC activities since 2002 and has been the speaker of FDC Canada branch. Since November 2012 he has been holding the position of being the speaker for FDC headquarters.

Mr. Peng Xiaoming has been a Chinese democrat for more than two decades. Seven members of his family were categorized by the CCP as rightists during the anti-rightist movement, and his father was persecuted and died in the CCP prison. He has been the Chair of the Chinese Students and Scholars Organization in Germany since 2002 and the Vice-Chair of FDC headquarters since 2012.

There is another Chinese scholar, Mr. Su Junyan, that needs to be mentioned here. He was the board member of the FDC headquarters and Vice-Chair of the FDC Canada branch. Sheng Xue demanded donations from him and later spread a rumor that Mr. Su wanted to buy the post of Chair of FDC Canada branch. In July 2013 he openly resigned from FDC because Sheng Xue's abuse of power and corruption ran counter to the democratic cause.

All of the six revealers mentioned above have been labeled by Sheng Xue as communist spies.

Since its foundation in 1989, the Federation for a Democratic China (“FDC”) has had 11 chairpersons. Sheng Xue took this position in October 2012. None of the first ten chairpersons have been accused of corruption or fraud. The main revealers of Sheng Xue are members of the Chinese democracy movement who have known her for over 20 years, and bear witness to her abuse of power, fraud and corruption.

The term of Sheng Xue as the Chair of FDC headquarters should have been terminated in October 2014. However, she refused to hold the congress in time for a new election. The following year she asked one of her followers to organize another meeting, which was not recognized by the FDC board. FDC Vice-Chairpersons Mr. Peng Xiaoming, Mr. Tang Yuanjun, Secretary General Mr. Pan Yongzhong, Chair of the Supervisory Council Mr. Chan Luenkwan, former Chair and present board member Mr. FEI Liangyong and former Chair of the Supervisory Council Mr. Zhang Jian were all absent at this meeting. The Vice-Chair Mr. Liang Youcan was present but suggested to postpone the new election since the meeting did not enjoy a proper quorum. However, Sheng Xue disregarded this position and unilaterally moved to renew her chairmanship for another term.

This type of unilateral power grab is unprecedented by the KMT, not even by China’s most notorious political organization the CCP. It was against the Charter of FDC and Sheng Xue was therefore asked to give up her chairmanship. Unexpectedly, she not only refused to resign, but also launched an attack against those who objected to her coup, and who since then receive an unending stream of harassing mail and threats. She may have thought the opposition to her misconduct would die down, but instead the questioning and exposure of her misconduct has continued to grow. In the short period of three years where she has served as Chair, FDC has been dogged by scandal, and is now totally crippled.

Anyone who decides to raise their voices in support of Sheng Xue needs to research these points and question why she faces such outspoken opposition from so many long-term and respected Chinese democracy advocates. The signatories of the joint Statement simply cannot know Sheng Xue's life and deeds as intimately as her former colleagues, associates, and friends.

Sheng Xue's misconduct has paralyzed the FDC, and it is not only the right but the responsibility of its members to stand up to her. Mr. Michael Craig, if he did indeed author the statement attributed to him, has unfortunately made some hasty conclusions by suggesting that we are supported by the Chinese government, or that we are somehow hiding in the darkness. We are here, Mr. Craig, and you are free to contact us at any time. Just as astonishing is his statement that no Chinese human rights activists or a pro-democracy movement in Canada can meet or exceed the tireless and selfless efforts of Sheng Xue. Clearly these exaggerated compliments (which have been paraphrased above because the text in English is riddled with grammatical errors) read more like slogans, and demonstrate how little knowledge this person actually has about the Chinese Democracy Movement and its supporters. Although Sheng Xue may have done some good in her past, it cannot be reconciled with the fraud and corruption in which she has been involved.

We contacted the Toronto office of Amnesty International Canada (“AI”) to ask whether Mr. Craig is, as reported in the Ming Pao, working for AI and whether AI supported Sheng Xue. Ms. Gloria Nafziger, AI’s China Observer, told us clearly that AI had made no declaration of support for Sheng Xue and that Mr. Michael Craig is not and has never been AI’s China Observer. He was only a volunteer, and left AI a year ago. Mr. Craig’s words and deeds can only represent himself, not Amnesty International.

Though Mr. Michael Craig is not staff member of AI, we still agree with his suggestion to urge the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency (“CSIS”) to intervene in the case of Sheng Xue. We also suggest that CSIS and other departments concerned launched an overall investigation of the accusations of Sheng Xue, relating to false invoices, immigration fraud, embezzlement of donations and funds, which are not insignificant amounts of money. We suggest that translators be hired to turn our Chinese texts into English as references for the investigation. We are sure that the true colors of Sheng Xue will sooner or later be known to the public.

By all means, the authorities should investigate the pornographic, lurid and violent harassment and threats Sheng Xue claims to have experienced, and the persons responsible should be punished. We do not condone such behavior, and we would welcome justice against the persons who sent these to her, especially since they were done in fake social media accounts set up in some of our names to falsely implicate us.

In the announcement of the press conference and in the joint statement “In Recognition of Sheng Xue”, an investigation report is mentioned. To be clear, this bilingual so-called report undertaken by FDC Canadian branch has no credibility and no independence. In fact, facing the questioning from members of FDC and pro-FDC friends, Sheng Xue enlisted only her supporters and allies for the so-called investigation. Those who have actually been involved in the cases and those who questioned Sheng Xue were not asked for evidence, and their positions were not verified. No persons with credibility from the Chinese community in Toronto were invited to either investigate or observe the investigation. This report is an inside job to influence public opinion and is seen as a farce within the Chinese community of Toronto. To gain fame and attention by deception has become part of Sheng Xue’s life and this sham report is only one of the many examples of her misconduct.

In the joint statement it was written: “Sheng Xue as a writer and reporter (as well as a special correspondent of Radio Free Asia for seventeen years), has won several awards, including the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee commemorative medal, Canadian National Magazine Award Correspondents Association and the Canadian depth investigative Journalism Award. “

While she may claim to be a reporter, Sheng Xue has been exposed to be a reporter without journalistic morals. She created news and quite often she made reports about herself as a Chinese democrat. She is no longer associated with Radio Free Asia. As to the awards mentioned, the co-winner and main writer of the investigative reporting Mr. Tom Fennell has been intentionally omitted, and Sheng Xue has never credited his name in any of the context related to this prize.

Regarding the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, it is described in Wikipedia as “a commemorative medal created in 2012 to mark the sixtieth anniversary of Elizabeth II's accession to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms”. The Canadian medal was handed out to 60,000 citizens and permanent residents of Canada. It is not a special award to Sheng Xue as a writer or reporter, as indicated in the Statement.

It is with great sadness that we read Mr. Craig Offman’s article on the ‘regal’ Sheng Xue, published on March 4, 2016 by The Globe and Mail. Many of us have known Ms. Sheng Xue for years, and find it unfortunate that a respected newspaper such as The Globe and Mail appears to have been so easily manipulated. Ms. Sheng Xue has successfully created a distraction by claiming harassment by us as agents of the Chinese Communist Party in order to not only discredit our ongoing work, but also to draw attention away from the accusations of criminal misconduct made against her by her former associates, colleagues, and friends. By taking up the flag of support for Ms. Sheng Xue, the Globe and Mail has helped her to perpetuate the false narrative that will allow her to continue not only to hide, but also to do further damage to the Chinese democracy movement.

We, the undersigned, would like to emphasize that while we reside in different corners of the globe and may not be “highly organized”, what brings us together is our common pursuit for justice. We would welcome a thorough investigation into all of Ms Sheng Xue's claims, as we are confident that any such independent investigation will lead to the exposure of her misrepresentations, unethical behavior, and criminal misconduct.

Date: March 10, 2016

Co-signers （In alphabetical order）:

Bian Hexiang
- Democratic activist blacklisted by the Chinese communist regime;
- Executive member of the Central Committee of Chinese Social Democratic Party;
- Chairman of the Coalition of Guards For American Values, Inc.;
- Living at present in New York City, USA.

Chen Yiran

- Witness of the Tiananmen Massacre;
- Immigrated to Canada in 1999;
- Volunteer for FDC Canada since 2003;
- Former board member and bookkeeper of the Shiyuan Project;
- Living at present in Toronto, Canada.

Fei Liangyong
- Graduate of Tsinghua University with a major in nuclear reactor engineering;
- Relocated to Germany in 1987 for further studies at Munich University of Technology;
- Active member of the Chinese democracy movement since 1989;
- Served as Chair of FDC headquarters from 2003 to 2012;
- One of the founders of the register NGO “Forum for a Democratic China and Asia” and board director since 2006;
- Living at present in Germany.

Lu Decheng

- Dissident and one of the three protesters during the 1989 democracy movement who threw eggs filled with pigment to the Portrait of Mao Zedong on the Tiananmen Gate.
- Sentenced in 1989 to 16 years in jail for committing crimes of counterrevolution.
- Left China for Thailand in 2004
- Arrived in Canada on April 11, 2006
- Living at present in Canada.

Liu Shaofu

- Graduate of East China Normal University in Shanghai;
- Participated in the Chinese democracy movement in 1978;
- One of the founders of the underground magazine “Voice of Democracy” ;
- Important member of the overseas Chinese democracy movement in Canada since 1991;
- Serving as the speaker of FDC headquarters since November 2012;
- Living at present in Toronto, Canada.

Liu Xiaodong

- Freelancer with the pen name “San Mei” (meaning the third sister);
- Author of the book ” Lost in Troubled Times” and over 200 articles denouncing totalitarian systems;
- Dissident blacklisted by the Chinese communist regime;
- Living at present in Chicago, USA.

Peng Xiaoming
- Former editor at Shanghai Literature & Art Publishing House after graduating from Shanghai Fudan Univesity;
- Relocated to Germany to study at University of Bonn for cultural anthropology;
- Editor of the Chinese European Post, the last Chinese newspaper in Europe that is independent and free from censorship;
- Active member of the Chinese democracy movement since 1989;
- Serving as Vice-Chair of FDC headquarters since 2012;
- Living at present in Germany.

Su Junyan

- Graduated from the Department of History of Beijing University;
- Former research associate at the Institute of Ethnic History of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences before leaving China;
- Author of the documentary book “The bloody China” ;
- Author of over 530 commentaries about China issues known as “Su Ming Commentaries” ;
- Former board member of FDC headquarters and Vice-Chair of FDC Canada branch;
- Living at present in Toronto, Canada.

Xiao Hong

- Freelancer with the pen name “Xiao Ping Tou”;
- Researcher of the history of the Chinese Cultural Revolution;
- Living at present in Denmark.

Zhu Rui

- Writer and novelist with writings focused on Tibet issues;
- Publications include novels, essays and political commentaries;
- Living at present in Canada.

Man kwong Han

— Member of the Federation for a Democratic China (FDC) since 1990, one of the earliest board members of FDC Toronto subsection;
—Present member of the Supervisory Council of FDC Canada branch;

— Living currently in Toronto, Canada.

附文（摘录)

表彰盛雪女士

一個高度有組織化的人群正在用造謠污衊的手段，企圖將盛雪女士邊緣化，使之被逼入孤立境地，將她擊倒，因為盛雪女士是針對中國專制暴政最有力的批評家之一。她是民主中國陣線（1989年9月在法國巴黎成立的全球性的中國民運組織）的主席。自1989年，她一直居住在加拿大，她是加拿大公民。目前，盛雪女士正持續遭遇有系統的、險惡的、主要是來自網絡的攻擊和凌辱，她的許多朋友也受到了壓力和威脅。

我們簽署這份讚揚盛雪女士的聲明，我們有些人認識盛雪女士長達25年。盛雪女士通過幫助我們認識中國的真相而將我們聚集在一起。她讓我們體認到西藏人，維吾爾人，法輪功學員，台灣人和民運志士同樣遭受中國政府的逼迫，被枉法拘禁，甚至遭謀殺。盛雪女士投身團結受逼迫社區的所作所為，自然成了中國專制政權將她恨之入骨的眾多理由中的主要因素。

多年来，盛雪做為作家和記者（包括作為自由亚洲电台的特約記者十七年）获得了數個奖项，包括英女王伊麗莎白二世鑽石银禧紀念勳章，加拿大全國杂志奖和加拿大記者協會深度新闻調查奖等。

在博客，電郵、推特、臉書、微信和社交聊天室等電子社交環境裡，在大多數中文的語境裡，盛雪女士被攻擊是中國間諜，被污衊挪用善良的中國民運支持者的捐款，盜用民陣的經費，用於享受個人的奢華生活。事實是，盛雪女士一直靠自己的勞動包括媒體工作和分租自己的居所等過着儉約的生活。還有一些不實舉報，說她在難民甄別聆訊中出庭假證中國政府的暴政，而向難民申報人索取錢財。然而，一份由民陣獨立調查小組所作出的報告顯示，這些指控都是完全沒有證據的。

同时，指責者說盛雪有數不清的婚外情，事實上，盛雪有著三十年的穩定婚姻。一些誹謗和攻擊來自一些暗地裡的寫手和一次性的支持者。盛雪的頭像被用特殊的照片處理技術安裝在裸露的不知名的身體上。这完全是下流的谎言。

到底是什麽事情弄得中國政府如此氣急敗壞？盛雪女士從1989年以來，持之以恆地為天安門屠殺案死難者伸張正義，是組織示威活動的骨幹之一。盛雪女士作為自由亞洲電台的特約記者和自由撰稿人，不知疲倦地報導並譴責中國政府那些駭人聽聞的侵犯人權惡行。面對中國政府及其豢養的鷹犬的攻擊行動，盛雪從不退縮。

同那些關於她貪污公共捐款的謊言恰恰相反的是，盛雪女士總是拿出自己的钱帮助在中国被监禁的民运人士和家屬以及难民申请人，她還拿出錢來捐助一些会议。

盛雪女士積極配合達賴喇嘛尊者的一些活動，她兩次赴印度達蘭薩拉訪問並覲見尊者，她還在尊者訪問北美期間，組織當地華社領袖和民眾與尊者會面。2013年10月，盛雪女士作為主要發起人，在加拿大多倫多主導召開了一個國際人權和民主會議，會議意義深遠。

儘管中國政府執意污衊法輪大法，盛雪女士一貫積極支持學員應該享有一份在自由環境裡的修煉權利。同樣，盛雪女士也是維吾爾社區多年的朋友，在加拿大國內外，為維吾爾人的權利呼喊。在北京政府和台灣政府改善關係之前很久，盛雪她走進了加拿大的台湾社區。她还与加拿大的韩国人權活动家一起，呼籲關注朝鲜政权的野蛮人權迫害，這一政權受到中共的背後支持。

總之，在加拿大沒有任何一位投身中國人權和民主運動的活躍人士能夠超過盛雪，她的不知疲倦和奮不顧身，讓許多人望塵莫及。對於中共政權的暴行，盛雪女士從不放過，絕不姑且。荒謬指控盛雪女士是間諜，得益者只能是中國共產黨。

我們尊敬盛雪女士，為她所作所為喝彩。她多年來推動民主，團結批評中國政府的各路人士。我們是信任她的。我們邀請並鼓勵那些攻擊盛雪女士的人物從陰暗裡走出來，同我們實實在在地辯論。他們的舉措顯示似乎他們是中國政府的支持者。我們知道並歡迎關於盛雪女士的真相！

目前簽署人名單：

Michael Craig, Chair, China Rights Network
麥克.克里格，中國人權網絡聯盟主席

Kunga Tsering, Co-chair, Canadian Friends of Tibet
貢噶.才仁，加拿大西藏之友協會共同主席

Mehmet Tohti, former President, Uygur Canadian Society
穆罕默德.托合提，加拿大維吾爾協會前主席

Kayum Masimov, President, Uygur Canadian Society
卡尤莫.馬西莫夫，加拿大維吾爾社區主席

Rollor Luo, Board Member, Federation for a Democratic China
羅樂，民主中國陣線總部理事

Kyung B Lee, President, The Council for Human Rights in North Kore
李必京，加拿大朝鲜人权理事会總裁

Jun He, President, Federation for a Democratic China, Canada
賀軍，民陣中國陣線加拿大主席

Majed El Shafie, President, One Free World International
馬吉德.沙菲牧師，一個自由世界總裁

Michael Stainton, President, Taiwanese Human Rights Association of Canada
史麥克，加拿大台灣人權會主席

Dr. Albert J F Lin, Taiwanese Human Rights Association of Canada
林哲夫博士，台灣前僑選立法委員

David Kilgour, former MP and Minister for Asia-Pacific
大衛喬高，加拿大前國會議員，亞太司司長

The Hon. Consiglio DiNino, former Senator and Chair, Parliamentary Friends of Tibet
康賽里奧.迪尼諾，加拿大前參議員，加拿大國會西藏之友會主席


In recognition of Ms. Sheng Xue

Means of a highly organized people are using disinformation slander in an attempt to Ms. Sheng Xue marginalized, forced into making an isolated situation, she was knocked down, because Ms. Sheng Xue against Chinese tyranny of the most powerful critic one. She is Chairman of the China Democratic Front (global Chinese pro-democracy organizations in September 1989 in Paris, France set up) of. Since 1989, she has been living in Canada, she is a Canadian citizen. Currently, Ms. Sheng Xue is continuing to suffer systematic and sinister, mainly from network attacks and insults, many of her friends is under pressure and threats.

We sign this declaration commend Ms. Sheng Xue, and some of us recognize Ms. Sheng Xue 25 years. Ms. Sheng Xue of China by helping us recognize the truth and we will be together. She made ​​us realize that the Tibetans, Uighurs, Falun Gong practitioners, Taiwanese and Chinese pro-democracy government Chester also suffered persecution, detention is capricious and even murdered. Ms. Sheng Xue join solidarity actions persecuted communities, naturally became China's authoritarian regime to a number of reasons she hated the main factor.

Over the years, Sheng Xue as writers and reporters (including as a special correspondent of Radio Free Asia, seventeen years) won several awards, including the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee commemorative medal, Canadian National Magazine Award Correspondents Association and the Canadian depth investigative Journalism Award.

In the blog, email, Twitter, Facebook, WeChat and social chat rooms and other electronic social environment, most of the Chinese context, Ms. Sheng Xue, a Chinese spy was attacked, stigmatized misappropriated good Chinese pro-democracy supporters contributions, misappropriation of funds FRODEBU, for personal enjoyment of luxury living. The fact is that Ms. Sheng Xue has been relying on their own labor include media work and subletting their homes, they lead frugal lives. There are some false report that she appear false Chinese government tyranny in refugee determination hearing, while the applicant obtain money to refugees. However, a report by the Independent Investigation Panel FRODEBU made ​​show that these allegations are completely without evidence.

Meanwhile, the accused persons said Sheng Xue has numerous extramarital affairs, in fact, Sheng Xue has three decades of stable marriage. Some secretly slander and attack from a number of writers and one-time supporters. Sheng Xue's picture is with a special photo processing technology installed on bare unknown body. It is completely nasty lie.

In the end is what makes the Chinese government so flustered? Ms. Sheng Xue since 1989, consistently for the victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre of justice is one of the backbone of the organization of demonstrations. Ms.

Sheng Xue as a special correspondent of Radio Free Asia and freelance writer, and worked tirelessly to condemn the Chinese government reported that the appalling human rights violations evil. Faced with the attacks of the Chinese government and its lackey fed, and Sheng Xue never flinched.

With those about her contributions to public corruption lies the contrary, Ms. Sheng Xue always come up with their own money to help dissidents imprisoned in China as well as refugee claimants and their families, she also took some of the money to the donor conference.

Ms. Sheng Xue actively cooperate with some of the activities of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, she twice went to Dharamsala, India, and an audience with His Holiness the visit, during which she also Venerable visit North America, the organization of local Chinese community leaders and the public to meet with His Holiness. October 2013, Ms. Sheng Xue as the main sponsor, in Toronto, Canada held a leading international human rights and democracy conference, meeting meaningful.

Although the Chinese government insisted slander Falun Dafa, Ms. Sheng Xue has always actively supported the student should have the right to freely practice one's environment. Similarly, Ms. Sheng Xue also Uighur community friends for many years, in Canada and abroad, for the rights of Uighurs shouting. In the Beijing government and the government of Taiwan for a long time, Sheng Xue, she walked into the Canadian community before Taiwan to improve relations. She also Korean human rights activists in Canada together, to call attention to the regime's brutal human rights abuses, the regime backed by the CCP.

In short, no one in Canada to join the Chinese human rights activists and pro-democracy movement can exceed Sheng Xue, her tireless and selfless, so many people catch up. For the Chinese Communist regime's atrocities, Ms. Sheng Xue never missed, not tentatively. Ms. Sheng Xue is absurd allegations spyware, can only benefit the Chinese Communist Party.

We honor Ms. Sheng Xue, cheering for her actions. Her years of promoting democracy, unity and those who criticize the Chinese government and the brightest. We trust her. We invite and encourage those people to attack Ms. Sheng Xue to come out from the dark, the real debate with us. They move as if they show the Chinese government supporters. We know and welcome the truth about Ms. Sheng Xue!

At present the list of signatories:

Michael Craig, Chair, China Rights Network

Mike Krieger, President of the China Human Rights Network Alliance

Kunga Tsering, Co-chair, Canadian Friends of Tibet

Kunga. Tsering, Canadian co-chair of the Society of Friends of Tibet

Mehmet Tohti, former President, Uygur Canadian Society

Mohammed care co-mention Uyghur Canadian Association of Former President of the

Kayum Masimov, President, Uygur Canadian Society

. Massimov, Chairman of the Uighur community in Canada Kayou Mo

Rollor Luo, Board Member, Federation for a Democratic China

Luo music, the headquarters of the governing Democratic China

Kyung B Lee, President, The Council for Human Rights in North Kore

Lee will be in Beijing, president of the Korean Human Rights Council of Canada

Jun He, President, Federation for a Democratic China, Canada

He Jun, FRODEBU Chairman of the Canada China Front

Majed El Shafie, President, One Free World International

Majid. Shafi priest, a president of the free world

Michael Stainton, President, Taiwanese Human Rights Association of Canada

Shi Maike, Canada Chairman of human rights in Taiwan

Dr. Albert JF Lin, Taiwanese Human Rights Association of Canada

Dr. Lin Zhefu, Taiwan's top legislator Qiao election

David Kilgour, former MP and Minister for Asia-Pacific

David Kilgour, former Canadian Member of Parliament, the Asia-Pacific Division

The Hon. Consiglio DiNino, former Senator and Chair, Parliamentary Friends of Tibet

Kangsailiao. Dini Nuo, former senator of Canada, the Canadian Parliament Chairman of the Friends of Tibet