Question 1

chinese new year introductionEric's English Lounge 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

There’s rhythm in writing! 🎶這個禮拜Presentality的Andrew來分享英文寫作的節奏!★★★★★★★★★★★★我的工作需要看非常多的英文。其中有英文母語的人寫的，也有非母語的人寫的。最近，我注意到一個兩者之間很明顯的差別。這個差別很少有人提到，因為它無關文法正確，也不是有學問的用語，或是文雅的詞彙。是句子的長短。Well，更正確的來說，是長句跟短句的交錯。我發現，非母語人士寫的英文句子，不但比英文母語的人寫的長，而且是大部分句子都很長。母語的人，尤其是很會寫的人，則是會把長句跟短句混合搭配。那又怎樣？★★★★★★★★★★★★你可能會說 ok，以英文為母語的人比較會用短的句子，那又怎樣？句子的長短，跟我寫作的好壞，有關嗎？關係可大了。就像音樂，或是影片，文字也是「內容」。只要是「內容」，就有它的節奏。你可以想像一首曲子，從頭到尾都是很長的音，而且一點變化都沒有嗎？或是一部很長的影片，從頭到尾都是很長的畫面，而且一點節奏的變化都沒有嗎？Well actually，你應該可以想像，這些就是要幫助我們睡眠的。如果你不想要你的讀者覺得無聊或甚至睡著，我建議適度變換你文字的節奏。但我們先看案例。我拿一篇台灣人寫的文，跟另一篇美國人寫的，來做比較：把每個句子都分拆成不同的段落，句子的長短就一目了然了。★★★★★★★★★★★★但我們先看案例。我拿一篇台灣人寫的文，跟另一篇美國人寫的，來做比較：把每個句子都分拆成不同的段落，句子的長短就一目了然了。📌 台灣案例：Taipei Times Opinion1. The TAIEX last month rose above 17,000 points as rallies in steel, shipping and some non-tech stocks offset a weakness in semiconductor and electronics stocks.2. While news about a cluster of local COVID-19 infections connected with China Airlines cargo pilots and a hotel in Taoyuan fueled selling pressure early this month and pushed the local stock market into consolidation mode, the daily market turnover in the first two trading sessions of this month hit fresh highs.3. Moreover, Taiwan’s stock trading volume last month began to surpass that of Hong Kong for the first time in 15 years, which was beyond most market participants’ expectations.4. Taiwan’s daily market turnover exceeding Hong Kong’s might gradually become a new normal from this year, and there are good reasons for this.5. First, Hong Kong’s stock market has lost its appeal to foreign investors since China last year imposed national security legislation on the territory, triggering a potential flight of capital and talent.6. Second, many wealthy Taiwanese tend to park their overseas funds in Hong Kong, China, Singapore, Switzerland and the US, but government statistics showed that more than 80 percent of funds repatriated by wealthy individuals last year were from Hong Kong, as they saw the political situation in the territory worsen after its self-governance, human rights and freedom of speech were further suppressed.7. Third, China’s new NASDAQ-style stock board — the Shanghai Stock Exchange’s STAR board — has emerged as a fast-growing capital markets center for Chinese companies at a time when rising China-US tensions have triggered concerns about their prospects of listing in New York, posing a growing challenge to the Hong Kong stock exchange.8. On the other hand, Taiwan’s economic fundamentals, the central bank’s adoption of extraordinary monetary easing and the government’s fiscal policies have fueled continued rallies in the nation’s stock market since last year.9. It might be too early to tell how long the consolidation trend might last, as a resurgent COVID-19 outbreak is coloring the global economic outlook, but some insight can be drawn from the stock market:10. Taiwan’s GDP grew a larger-than-expected 8.16 percent in the first quarter, as exports and private investment remained healthy.都是一堆很長的句子對不對？我們來看美國人寫的句子，也是一個主流媒體的 opinion 文。★★★★★★★★★★★★📌 美國案例：New York Times Opinion1. I miss torturing Liz Cheney.2. But it must be said that the petite blonde from Wyoming suddenly seems like a Valkyrie amid halflings.3. She is willing to sacrifice her leadership post — and risk her political career — to continue calling out Donald Trump’s Big Lie.4. She has decided that, if the price of her job is being as unctuous to Trump as Kevin McCarthy is, it isn’t worth it, because McCarthy is totally disgracing himself.5. It has been a dizzying fall for the scion of one of the most powerful political families in the land, a conservative chip off the old block who was once talked about as a comer, someone who could be the first woman president.6. How naïve I was to think that Republicans would be eager to change the channel after Trump cost them the Senate and the White House and unleashed a mob on them.7. I thought the Donald would evaporate in a poof of orange smoke, ending a supremely screwed-up period of history.8. But the loudest mouth is not shutting up.9. And Republicans continue to listen, clinging to the idea that the dinosaur is the future.10. “We can’t grow without him,” Lindsey Graham said.📌 Note: 即使是比較長的句子，這位作者也會用標點符號拆散它：She is willing to sacrifice her leadership post — and risk her political career — to continue calling out Donald Trump’s Big Lie. 這就好比用句點一樣，讓我們讀起來有點停頓休息的時間。★★★★★★★★★★★★📌 注意到了嗎？台灣人寫的英文，句子都偏長，而且長度都差不多。美國人寫的就不一樣了：一個只有五個字的句子開頭，然後一堆稍微長一點的句子，然後再來一串短句。你可能懷疑我故意挑選很極端了例子出來，而且幹嘛專門打台灣人呢？所以想到這裡，我從我的書架上，隨便挑了兩本跟科技有關的書出來。左邊的，是美國人，矽谷知名投資人 Peter Thiel。右邊的是德國人，但注意了，是一個英文非常好的德國人。他不但是世界經濟論壇的創辦人，研究所也是在哈佛大學唸的。★★★★★★★★★★★★📌 兩本書 Introduction 是怎麼寫的？Klaus Schwab (德國)：Of the many diverse and fascinating challenges we face today, the most intense and important is how to understand and shape the new technology revolution, which entails nothing less than a transformation of humankind.We are at the beginning of a revolution that is fundamentally changing the way we live, work, and relate to one another.In its scale, scope and complexity, what I consider to be the fourth industrial revolution is unlike anything humankind has experienced before.Peter Thiel (美國)：Whenever I interview someone for a job, I like to ask this question: What important truth do very few people agree with you on?The question sounds easy because its straightforward.Actually, its very hard to answer.Its intellectually difficult because the knowledge that everyone is taught in school is by definition agreed upon.See the difference?★★★★★★★★★★★★📌 如何變換節奏呢？需要Andrew的完整分享請留言「There’s rhythm in writing~」。Follow Presentality for more!https://www.facebook.com/presentality

Question 2

chinese new year introduction江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。（加拿大法院鏈接在此：https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8）

這位法王的桃色事件，我是幾年前才聽到。但，藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞，我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過，也有一些活佛跟她表白。（這不只是她，其他地方我也聽過不少）

這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。

很多時候發生這種事情，信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇，或者說她們也精神病，或者說她們撒謊。

我不排除有這種可能性，但，多過一位，甚至多位出來指證的時候，我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。

大寶法王的桃色事件，最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒，第二位是香港的女出家人，現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。

對大寶法王信徒來說，這一次的比較麻煩，因為是有孩子的。（關於有孩子的，我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時，就有聽聞）

如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA，這對法王和他的信徒來說，會很尷尬和矛盾，因為做或不做，都死。

你若問我，我覺得『人數是有力量的』，同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來，是不出奇的。

我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒，如果你們真的愛佛教，先別說批判，但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議，你是間接害了佛教。

（下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容，當中有很多細節。）

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?

F. Delay / Prejudice

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).

[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.

[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.

[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.

[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.

BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.

[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.

[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.

[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.

[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.

[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.

[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.

[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.

[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.

[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.

[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.

[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.

[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:

a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;

b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;

c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;

d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.

[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.

[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.

[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.

[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:

I will definitely find a way to meet her

And you

Remember to take care of yourself if something happens

[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.

[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.

[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.

[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.

[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.

[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.

ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:

3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person

(a) is married to another person, or

(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and

(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or

(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.

[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).

[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.

[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.

[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.

[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.

[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.

[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.

[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.

[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.

[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.

[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.

[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:

[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.

[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:

1. Shelter:

(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?

(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?

(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:

(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?

(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?

(c) What were their feelings toward each other?

(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?

(e) Did they eat their meals together?

(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?

(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

3. Services:

What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:

(a) preparation of meals;

(b) washing and mending clothes;

(c) shopping;

(d) household maintenance; and

(e) any other domestic services?

4. Social:

(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?

(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?

5. Societal:

What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?

6. Support (economic):

(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?

(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?

(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

7. Children:

What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).

[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:

[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.

[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.

[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.

[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:

[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.

[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:

a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.

b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.

c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.

d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.

e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.

f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.

g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.

[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.

[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.

[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.

[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).

[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.

[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.

[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.

[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.

[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.

[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.

[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.

[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:

[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.

[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.

[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.

[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:

[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.

[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:

[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …

[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.

[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.

F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.

[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.

[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.

[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.

[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.

[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.

[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.

[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.

[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.

CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.

[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.

[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.

“Master Elwood”

Question 3

chinese new year introduction馮智政 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

【對華政策的範式轉移】絕對是歷史性講話.#成萬字 #萬言書 #頹譯都譯死人----小弟頹譯------蓬佩奧：謝謝。謝謝你們。州長，您的慷慨介紹。的確是這樣：當您在那個體育館裡散步時，說出“蓬佩奧”的名字，人們就會耳語。因為，我有一個兄弟，Mark，他是一個非常好，一位非常出色的籃球運動員。請為藍鷹榮譽衛隊（Blue Eagles Honor Guard）及飛行員Kayla Highsmith下士對國歌的精彩演繹給多一次掌聲如何？ （掌聲）也要感謝Laurie牧師那動人的祈禱，我還要感謝Hugh Hewitt和尼克遜基金會的邀請讓我在這個重要的美國機構發言。很高興能受空軍人員演唱，由海軍陸戰隊介紹，讓個一個陸軍傢伙站在海軍傢伙的房子前面。 （笑聲）（按蓬佩奧曾在美國陸軍服役 ）一切都很好。很榮幸來到Yorba Linda，尼克遜的父親在那裡建立了他出生和成長的房屋。在這困難時刻，使今天成為可能的尼克遜中心董事會和工作人員，感謝，感謝我和我的團隊使這一天成為可能。我們很幸運能在觀眾中見到一些特別的嘉賓，包括我認識的Chris Nixon (尼克遜的孫，Christopher Nixon Cox)。我還要感謝Tricia Nixon和Julie Nixon Eisenhower　（尼克遜兩位女兒）對這次訪問的支持。我還想提一提幾位勇敢的中國持不同政見者，他們長途跋涉並出席。其他尊貴的客人-（掌聲）-尊貴的客人，謝謝您的光臨。那些在帳篷下的人，您們必須支付額外的費用（笑）。以及那些正在觀看直播的人，感謝您的收看。最後，正如州長所說，我在Santa Ana出生，離這裡不遠。今天有我的姐姐和她的丈夫在聽眾中。謝謝大家的光臨。我敢打賭，您從沒想過我會站在這裡。我今天的講話是我在一系列中國演講中的第四組講話，我請國家安全顧問Robert O’Brien，聯邦調查局局長Chris Wray和司法部長Barr陪同我發言。我們有一個非常明確的目標，一個實在的任務。這是在解釋美國與中國關係的不同方面，數十年來這種關係中出現的巨大失衡以及中國共產黨所計劃的霸權。我們的目標是明確指出，特朗普總統的中國政策正在解決的對美國人的威脅是明顯的，並且我們正確立保障自由的戰略。Robert O’Brien談到了意識形態。聯邦調查局局長Wray談到了間諜活動。司法部長Barr談到了經濟學。現在，我今天的目標是將這一切匯總給美國人民，並詳細說明中國的威脅對我們的經濟，我們的自由，乃至全球自由民主國家的未來的衝擊。自基辛格（Kissinger）博士秘密訪問中國以來，到明年已經過去了半個世紀，而尼克松總統訪華50週年也就在2022年。那時世界大不一樣了。我們以為與中國交往（engagement）將創造一個帶有友好合作前景的美好未來。但是今天—今天我們仍然戴著口罩，看著疫性的死亡人數仍在增加，因為中共對世界的承諾沒有兌現。我們每天早上都在讀到鎮壓香港和新疆的新聞消息。我們看到的中國貿易濫用行為的驚人數字使美國失去了工作，並給整個美國經濟帶來了沉重打擊，包括南加州。而且我們正在看著一支越來越強大，甚至更具威脅性的中國軍隊。從加利福尼亞州到我的家鄉堪薩斯州以及其他地區，我都有著與美國人心中的疑問：從與中國交往至今，美國人民這50年見到了什麼？領袖們曾說過的中國邁向自由與民主發展的理論是否正確？這是中國對 雙贏 局面的定義嗎？實際上，從國務卿的角度來看，美國更安全嗎？我們是否有更大的可能為我們自己實現和平，並為我們之後的子孫後代享有和平？看，我們必須承認一個硬道理。我們必須承認一個硬道理，它將指導我們在未來幾十年中發展，如果我們要擁有一個自由的21世紀，而不是習近平夢想的中國世紀，那麼與中國盲目交往的舊範式坦白說是沒有贏的機會。我們決不能在此繼續，也絕不能重返。正如特朗普總統已明確指出的那樣，我們需要一項保護美國經濟乃至我們生活方式的戰略。自由世界必須戰勝這一新的暴政。 The free world must triumph over this new tyranny.現在，在我似乎不太希望拆除尼克遜總統的遺產之前，我想明確地說，他做了當時他認為最適合美國人民的事情，而且他很可能是對的。他是中國的傑出學生，冷酷的勇士和中國人民的偉大仰慕者，正如我們一樣。他意識到中國太重要而不能忽視，即使國力由於自身的共產主義野蠻行為而被削弱。這值得尼克遜給予極大的讚譽。1967年，尼克遜在一篇非常著名的外交事務文章中解釋了他的未來戰略。他的話是這樣的：他說：“從長遠來看，我們根本無法永遠把中國留在國際大家庭之外……在中國改變之前，世界不會安全。因此，我們的目標是 —在可能的範圍內，我們必須作出影響，而我們的目標應該是促使改變。”我認為這是整篇文章中的關鍵詞：“促使改變”。因此，在歷史性的北京之行中，尼克遜總統開始了我們的交住戰略。他崇高地尋求一個更自由，更安全的世界，並希望中國共產黨能兌現這一承諾。隨著時間的流逝，美國決策者越來越多地認為，隨著中國變得更加繁榮，它將會對外開放，它會在國內變得更加自由，而實際上在國外所面臨的威脅卻越來越小，它將變得更加友好。這一切似乎都是不可避免的。但是那個必然的時代已經過去了。我們一直在進行的這種交往並沒有帶來尼克遜總統希望所引起的中國內部的變化。事實是，我們的政策以及其他自由國家的政策使中國經濟從衰落得以恢復，但北京反咬了養活它的國際力量。我們曾向中國公民張開雙臂，只是看到中國共產黨利用我們的自由開放社會。中國派宣傳員參加了我們的新聞發布會，研究中心，高中，大學，甚至參加了家長教師會議。我們將台灣的朋友邊緣化，後來台灣蓬勃發展為積極的民主國家。我們給中國共產黨和政權本身以特殊的經濟待遇，只是看到中共堅持以對其人權侵犯保持沉默作為讓西方公司進入中國市場的代價。前一天，Robert O’Brien大使舉了幾個例子：萬豪，美國航空，達美航空，聯合航空都從其公司網站上刪除了對台灣的提及，以免激怒北京。在荷里活，這裏的不遠處，距離美國創作自由的中心和自命為社會正義的仲裁者，他們的自我審查可說是對中國發展最不利的參考。公司對CCP的默許也發生在世界各地。這種企業忠誠度如何運作？奉承會得到獎勵嗎？讓我引述Barr總檢察長在講話。他在上週的一次演講中說：“中國統治者的最終野心不是與美國進行貿易。是要略奪美國。”中國剝奪了我們寶貴的知識產權和商業機密，損失了在美國各地了數百萬個就業機會。它從美國吸走了供應鏈，然後添加了一個由奴隸制度製成的小工具。它使世界上主要的水路對國際貿易而言變得不那麼安全。尼克遜總統曾經說過，他擔心自己通過向中共開放世界而創造了一個“科學怪人”，這正是如此。現在，有誠信的人可以辯論為什麼自由國家允許這些年來，這些不好的事情發生。也許我們對中國的惡毒的共產主義幼稚，或者在我們在冷戰勝利後變得自大，或者軟弱的資本主義者被北京所說的“和平崛起”所愚昧。無論出於何種原因—無論出於何種原因，今天的中國在國內都越來越專制，並開始對其他地方的自由作出干預。特朗普總統說：夠了。我不認為兩派的人對我今天所說的事實提出異議。但是即使到現在，也有人堅持認為，為了對話而對話。現在，要明確地說，我們將繼續討論。但是這些對話的意義是不同的。幾週前，我去了檀香山，與楊潔篪見面。這是同樣的古老故事—說了很多話，但實際上沒有任何改變任何行為的提議。楊的承諾，就像中共在他面前做出的許多承諾一樣，都是空洞的。我想，他的期望是我會屈服於他們的要求，因為坦率地說，這是許多前任政府所做的。我沒有，特朗普總統也不會。正如O’Brien很好地解釋的那樣，我們必須記住，中共政權是馬克思列寧主義政權。習近平堅信這已破產的極權主義思想。正是這種意識形態，正是這種意識形態反映了他數十年來對全球共產主義中國霸權的渴望。美國再也不能忽視我們兩國之間的根本政治和意識形態差異，就像中共從來沒有忽視它們一樣。以我在眾議院情報委員會，然後擔任中央情報局局長，以及擔任美國國務卿兩年多的經驗，使我對這種中央理解成為可能：唯一的方式　—　真正改變共產主義中國的唯一方法，不是對中國領導人聽其言，而是觀其行。您會看到美國政策對此結論做出了回應。列根總統說，他是在“信任但要核實”的基礎上與蘇聯打交道的。關於中共，我說我們必須＂不信任和核查＂。 （掌聲）我們，世界上熱愛自由的國家，必須像尼克遜總統所希望的那樣，促使中國發生變化。我們必須促使中國以更具創造性和果斷性的方式進行變革，因為北京的行動威脅著我們的人民和我們的繁榮。我們必須首先改變我們的人民和我們的伙伴對中國共產黨的看法。我們必須說實話。我們不能像其他任何國家一樣，把這個假象視為正常國家。我們知道，與中國進行貿易不像與一個正常的，遵守法律的國家進行貿易。北京威脅將國際協議視為—將協議視為建議，以作為主導全球的渠道。但是，通過堅持公平條款，就像我們的貿易代表在獲得第一階段貿易協議時所做的那樣，我們可以迫使中國考慮其知識產權盜竊和損害美國工人的政策。我們也知道，與擁有CCP支持的公司開展業務與與一家加拿大公司開展業務不同。他們不回答獨立委員會的問題，而且其中許多是由國家贊助的，因此無需追求利潤。華為就是一個很好的例子。我們不再假裝華為是一家無辜的電信公司，它的出現是為了確保您可以和朋友聊天。我們稱其為真正的國家安全威脅，並為採取了相應的行動。我們也知道，如果我們的公司在中國投資，他們可能會有意或無意地支持共產黨嚴重侵犯人權的行為。因此，我們的美國財政部和商務部已批准並將那些危害和濫用世界人民最基本權利的中國領導人和實體列入黑名單。多個部門已就商業諮詢機構合作，以確保我們的CEO了解其供應鏈在中國境內的工作。我們也知道，我們也知道並非所有的中國學生和僱員都只是來這裡賺錢和積累一些知識的普通學生和工人。他們太多人來這裡竊取我們的知識產權並將其帶回自己的國家。司法部和其他機構已對這些罪行進行了嚴厲的懲罰。我們知道，解放軍也不是正規軍。其目的是維護中國共產黨精英的絕對統治，擴大中國帝國，而不是保護中國人民。因此，美國國防部加大了工作力度，擴大了在東，南海以及台灣海峽以及整個海峽的航行操作自由。我們還建立了一支太空部隊，以幫助阻止中國對這一最後邊界的侵略。同樣，坦率地說，我們在美國國務院制定了一套與中國打交道的新政策，推動特朗普總統實現公正與互惠的目標，以改寫幾十年來不斷加劇的失衡。就在本週，我們宣布關閉在休斯敦的中國領事館，因為它是間諜和知識產權盜竊的樞紐。 （掌聲）兩週前，我們在南中國海扭轉了過去八年忽略的國際法權益。我們呼籲中國限制其核能力以適應當今時代的戰略現實。國務院- 在世界各地，各個層面- 都與中國同行進行了交流，只是要求公平和互惠。但是我們的方法不只是要變得強硬。那不可能達到我們想要的結果。我們還必須與中國人民互動並賦予他們權力，他們是一個充滿活力，熱愛自由的人民，他們與中國共產黨完全不同。首先是面對面的外交。 （掌聲）無論我走到哪裡，我都遇到了有才華和勤奮的中國人。我遇過逃離新疆集中營的維吾爾族和哈薩克族。我曾與香港的民主領袖進行了交談，有陳日君樞機到黎智英。兩天前，我在倫敦會見了香港自由戰士羅冠聰。上個月在我的辦公室裡，我聽到了天安門廣場倖存者的故事。其中之一今天在這裡。王丹是一名關鍵學生，他從未停止為中國人民爭取自由。王先生，請您站起來，以便我們見到您嗎？ （掌聲）今天與我們同在的還有中國民主運動之父魏京生。他在中國的勞改營度過了幾十年的時間。魏先生，你能站起來嗎？ （掌聲）我成長及服役於冷戰時期。如果我學到一件事，共產黨人幾乎總是撒謊。他們告訴我們的最大謊言是，他們認為自己能代表14億被監視，壓迫和害怕說出來的人。恰恰相反。中共比任何敵人都更擔心中國人民的誠實觀點，失去對權力的控制。試想一下，如果我們能夠從武漢的醫生那裡聽到他們的來信，並且允許他們對新疫病的爆發發出警報，那麼世界會變得更好—更不用說中國內部的人了。幾十年來，我們的領袖一直無視，淡化勇敢的中國異見者的話，他們警告過我們所面對之政權。我們不能再忽略它了。他們與任何人一樣知道我們永遠無法回到現狀。但是改變中共的舉動並不單單是中國人民的使命。自由國家必須努力捍衛自由。這不是簡單的事情。但是我有信心我們可以做到。我有信心，因為我們以前做過。我們知道這是怎麼回事。我有信心，因為中共正在重複蘇聯犯下的一些同樣的錯誤-疏遠潛在的盟友，破壞國內外的信任，拒絕財產權和法治。我有信心。我之所以有信心，是因為我看到其他國家之間的覺醒，他們知道我們無法回到過去，美國亦如是。我從布魯塞爾，悉尼到河內都聽說過。最重要的是，我相信我們可以捍衛自由，因為自由本身是漂亮的。看看香港人因中共加強對這個驕傲城市的控制，要移居海外。他們揮舞著美國國旗。是的，確實有差異。與蘇聯不同，中國已深入融入全球經濟。但是，北京對我們依賴，甚於我們依賴他們。 （掌聲）瞧，我拒絕相信我們生活在一個不可避免中國的時代，某些陷阱（按：修昔底德陷阱）是預設的，中共至上是未來。我們的方法不是注定失敗的，因為美國正在衰落。正如我在今年早些時候在慕尼黑說的那樣，自由世界仍在勝利的一方。我們只需要相信它，就明白它並為此感到自豪。來自世界各地的人們仍然希望加入開放社會。他們來到這裡學習，來到這里工作，來到這里為家人謀生。他們並不想留在中國。是時候了。今天很高興來到這裡。這是完美的時機。現在是自由國家採取行動的時候了。並非每個國家都將以同樣的方式對待中國，也不應該。每個國家都必須對如何保護自己的主權，如何保護自己的經濟繁榮以及如何保護自己的理想不受中國共產黨的觸碰而有所了解。但是我呼籲每個國家的每一個領導人—如美國所先行的—簡單地堅持互惠，堅持中國共產黨的透明度和問責制。這些簡單而強大的標準將取得很大的成就。太長時間了，我們讓中共制定交往條款，但不再這樣做。自由國家必須定下基調。我們必須遵循相同的原則。我們必須在沙子上劃出共同的界線，而這不能被中共的討價還價或他們的野蠻沖走。確實，這就是美國最近所做的事情，因為我們一勞永逸地拒絕了中國在南中國海的非法主張，因為我們已敦促各國成為廉潔國家，以免其公民的私人信息落在手裡中國共產黨。我們通過制定標準來做到這一點。現在，這確實很困難。對於一些小國家來說很難。他們害怕被人欺負。因此，其中一些人根本沒有能力，沒有勇氣暫時與我們站在一起。的確，我們與北約的盟友並未以其對香港的立場站起來，因為他們擔心北京會限制中國市場的准入。這種膽怯會導致歷史性的失敗，我們無法重複。我們不能重複過去幾年的錯誤。中國面臨的挑戰要求民主國家發揮作用和精力，民主國家包括歐洲，非洲，南美，尤其是印度太平洋地區。而且，如果我們現在不採取行動，那麼中共最終將侵蝕我們的自由，並顛覆我們的社會努力建立的基於法規的秩序。如果我們現在屈膝，我們孩子的孩子可能會受到中國共產黨的擺佈，中國共產黨的行動是當今自由世界中的主要挑戰。習近平總書記註定不會永遠在中國內外施暴，除非我們允許現在，這與圍堵無關。不要相信這策略。這是我們從未遇到過的複雜的新挑戰。蘇聯與自由世界隔絕了。共產主義中國已經在我們的邊界之內。因此，我們不能獨自面對這一挑戰。聯合國，北約，七國集團國家，二十國集團，我們的經濟，外交和軍事力量合力，如果我們清楚明確地並勇往直前，無疑足以應付這一挑戰。也許是時候讓志趣相投的國家組成一個新的團體，一個新的民主國家聯盟了。我們有工具。我知道我們可以做到。現在我們需要意志。引用聖經經文，我問“要警醒禱告，免得陷入試探。你們心靈雖然願意，肉體卻是軟弱的。”如果自由世界沒有改變 —沒有改變，共產主義中國一定會改變我們。無法因為舒適或便利而返回到過去的做法。確保我們脫離中國共產黨的自由是我們這個時代的使命，而美國完全有能力領導它，因為我們的建國原則為我們提供了這一機會。正如我上週在費城站立時所看到的那樣，注視著獨立廳，我們的國家建立在所有人類都擁有不可剝奪的某些權利的前提下。確保這些權利是我們政府的工作。這是一個簡單而有力的真理。它使我們成為全世界人民的自由燈塔，包括中國境內的人。確實，尼克遜在1967年寫道“除非中國改變，否則世界是不安全的”是正確的。現在我們該聽他的話了。今天的危機已經明確了。今天，覺醒正在發生。今天，自由世界必須作出回應。我們永遠無法回到過去。願上帝保佑你們每個人。願上帝保佑中國人民。＇願上帝保佑美利堅合眾國人民。謝謝你們。（掌聲）Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you, Governor, for that very, very generous introduction. It is true: When you walk in that gym and you say the name “Pompeo,” there is a whisper. I had a brother, Mark, who was really good – a really good basketball player.And how about another round of applause for the Blue Eagles Honor Guard and Senior Airman Kayla Highsmith, and her wonderful rendition of the national anthem? (Applause.)Thank you, too, to Pastor Laurie for that moving prayer, and I want to thank Hugh Hewitt and the Nixon Foundation for your invitation to speak at this important American institution. It was great to be sung to by an Air Force person, introduced by a Marine, and they let the Army guy in in front of the Navy guy’s house. (Laughter.) It’s all good.It’s an honor to be here in Yorba Linda, where Nixon’s father built the house in which he was born and raised.To all the Nixon Center board and staff who made today possible – it’s difficult in these times – thanks for making this day possible for me and for my team.We are blessed to have some incredibly special people in the audience, including Chris, who I’ve gotten to know – Chris Nixon. I also want to thank Tricia Nixon and Julie Nixon Eisenhower for their support of this visit as well.I want to recognize several courageous Chinese dissidents who have joined us here today and made a long trip.And to all the other distinguished guests – (applause) – to all the other distinguished guests, thank you for being here. For those of you who got under the tent, you must have paid extra.And those of you watching live, thank you for tuning in.And finally, as the governor mentioned, I was born here in Santa Ana, not very far from here. I’ve got my sister and her husband in the audience today. Thank you all for coming out. I bet you never thought that I’d be standing up here.My remarks today are the fourth set of remarks in a series of China speeches that I asked National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, FBI Director Chris Wray, and the Attorney General Barr to deliver alongside me.We had a very clear purpose, a real mission. It was to explain the different facets of America’s relationship with China, the massive imbalances in that relationship that have built up over decades, and the Chinese Communist Party’s designs for hegemony.Our goal was to make clear that the threats to Americans that President Trump’s China policy aims to address are clear and our strategy for securing those freedoms established.Ambassador O’Brien spoke about ideology. FBI Director Wray talked about espionage. Attorney General Barr spoke about economics. And now my goal today is to put it all together for the American people and detail what the China threat means for our economy, for our liberty, and indeed for the future of free democracies around the world.Next year marks half a century since Dr. Kissinger’s secret mission to China, and the 50th anniversary of President Nixon’s trip isn’t too far away in 2022.The world was much different then.We imagined engagement with China would produce a future with bright promise of comity and cooperation.But today – today we’re all still wearing masks and watching the pandemic’s body count rise because the CCP failed in its promises to the world. We’re reading every morning new headlines of repression in Hong Kong and in Xinjiang.We’re seeing staggering statistics of Chinese trade abuses that cost American jobs and strike enormous blows to the economies all across America, including here in southern California. And we’re watching a Chinese military that grows stronger and stronger, and indeed more menacing.I’ll echo the questions ringing in the hearts and minds of Americans from here in California to my home state of Kansas and beyond:What do the American people have to show now 50 years on from engagement with China?Did the theories of our leaders that proposed a Chinese evolution towards freedom and democracy prove to be true?Is this China’s definition of a win-win situation?And indeed, centrally, from the Secretary of State’s perspective, is America safer? Do we have a greater likelihood of peace for ourselves and peace for the generations which will follow us?Look, we have to admit a hard truth. We must admit a hard truth that should guide us in the years and decades to come, that if we want to have a free 21st century, and not the Chinese century of which Xi Jinping dreams, the old paradigm of blind engagement with China simply won’t get it done. We must not continue it and we must not return to it.As President Trump has made very clear, we need a strategy that protects the American economy, and indeed our way of life. The free world must triumph over this new tyranny.Now, before I seem too eager to tear down President Nixon’s legacy, I want to be clear that he did what he believed was best for the American people at the time, and he may well have been right.He was a brilliant student of China, a fierce cold warrior, and a tremendous admirer of the Chinese people, just as I think we all are.He deserves enormous credit for realizing that China was too important to be ignored, even when the nation was weakened because of its own self-inflicted communist brutality.In 1967, in a very famous Foreign Affairs article, Nixon explained his future strategy. Here’s what he said:He said, “Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave China forever outside of the family of nations…The world cannot be safe until China changes. Thus, our aim – to the extent we can, we must influence events. Our goal should be to induce change.”And I think that’s the key phrase from the entire article: “to induce change.”So, with that historic trip to Beijing, President Nixon kicked off our engagement strategy. He nobly sought a freer and safer world, and he hoped that the Chinese Communist Party would return that commitment.As time went on, American policymakers increasingly presumed that as China became more prosperous, it would open up, it would become freer at home, and indeed present less of a threat abroad, it’d be friendlier. It all seemed, I am sure, so inevitable.But that age of inevitability is over. The kind of engagement we have been pursuing has not brought the kind of change inside of China that President Nixon had hoped to induce.The truth is that our policies – and those of other free nations – resurrected China’s failing economy, only to see Beijing bite the international hands that were feeding it.We opened our arms to Chinese citizens, only to see the Chinese Communist Party exploit our free and open society. China sent propagandists into our press conferences, our research centers, our high-schools, our colleges, and even into our PTA meetings.We marginalized our friends in Taiwan, which later blossomed into a vigorous democracy.We gave the Chinese Communist Party and the regime itself special economic treatment, only to see the CCP insist on silence over its human rights abuses as the price of admission for Western companies entering China.Ambassador O’Brien ticked off a few examples just the other day: Marriott, American Airlines, Delta, United all removed references to Taiwan from their corporate websites, so as not to anger Beijing.In Hollywood, not too far from here – the epicenter of American creative freedom, and self-appointed arbiters of social justice – self-censors even the most mildly unfavorable reference to China.This corporate acquiescence to the CCP happens all over the world, too.And how has this corporate fealty worked? Is its flattery rewarded? I’ll give you a quote from the speech that General Barr gave, Attorney General Barr. In a speech last week, he said that “The ultimate ambition of China’s rulers isn’t to trade with the United States. It is to raid the United States.”China ripped off our prized intellectual property and trade secrets, causing millions of jobs[1] all across America.It sucked supply chains away from America, and then added a widget made of slave labor.It made the world’s key waterways less safe for international commerce.President Nixon once said he feared he had created a “Frankenstein” by opening the world to the CCP, and here we are.Now, people of good faith can debate why free nations allowed these bad things to happen for all these years. Perhaps we were naive about China’s virulent strain of communism, or triumphalist after our victory in the Cold War, or cravenly capitalist, or hoodwinked by Beijing’s talk of a “peaceful rise.”Whatever the reason – whatever the reason, today China is increasingly authoritarian at home, and more aggressive in its hostility to freedom everywhere else.And President Trump has said: enough.I don’t think many people on either side of the aisle dispute the facts that I have laid out today. But even now, some are insisting that we preserve the model of dialogue for dialogue’s sake.Now, to be clear, we’ll keep on talking. But the conversations are different these days. I traveled to Honolulu now just a few weeks back to meet with Yang Jiechi.It was the same old story – plenty of words, but literally no offer to change any of the behaviors.Yang’s promises, like so many the CCP made before him, were empty. His expectations, I surmise, were that I’d cave to their demands, because frankly this is what too many prior administrations have done. I didn’t, and President Trump will not either.As Ambassador O’Brien explained so well, we have to keep in mind that the CCP regime is a Marxist-Leninist regime. General Secretary Xi Jinping is a true believer in a bankrupt totalitarian ideology.It’s this ideology, it’s this ideology that informs his decades-long desire for global hegemony of Chinese communism. America can no longer ignore the fundamental political and ideological differences between our countries, just as the CCP has never ignored them.My experience in the House Intelligence Committee, and then as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and my now two-plus years as America’s Secretary of State have led me to this central understanding:That the only way – the only way to truly change communist China is to act not on the basis of what Chinese leaders say, but how they behave. And you can see American policy responding to this conclusion. President Reagan said that he dealt with the Soviet Union on the basis of “trust but verify.” When it comes to the CCP, I say we must distrust and verify. (Applause.)We, the freedom-loving nations of the world, must induce China to change, just as President Nixon wanted. We must induce China to change in more creative and assertive ways, because Beijing’s actions threaten our people and our prosperity.We must start by changing how our people and our partners perceive the Chinese Communist Party. We have to tell the truth. We can’t treat this incarnation of China as a normal country, just like any other.We know that trading with China is not like trading with a normal, law-abiding nation. Beijing threatens international agreements as – treats international suggestions as – or agreements as suggestions, as conduits for global dominance.But by insisting on fair terms, as our trade representative did when he secured our phase one trade deal, we can force China to reckon with its intellectual property theft and policies that harmed American workers.We know too that doing business with a CCP-backed company is not the same as doing business with, say, a Canadian company. They don’t answer to independent boards, and many of them are state-sponsored and so have no need to pursue profits.A good example is Huawei. We stopped pretending Huawei is an innocent telecommunications company that’s just showing up to make sure you can talk to your friends. We’ve called it what it is – a true national security threat – and we’ve taken action accordingly.We know too that if our companies invest in China, they may wittingly or unwittingly support the Communist Party’s gross human rights violations.Our Departments of Treasury and Commerce have thus sanctioned and blacklisted Chinese leaders and entities that are harming and abusing the most basic rights for people all across the world. Several agencies have worked together on a business advisory to make certain our CEOs are informed of how their supply chains are behaving inside of China.We know too, we know too that not all Chinese students and employees are just normal students and workers that are coming here to make a little bit of money and to garner themselves some knowledge. Too many of them come here to steal our intellectual property and to take this back to their country.The Department of Justice and other agencies have vigorously pursued punishment for these crimes.We know that the People’s Liberation Army is not a normal army, too. Its purpose is to uphold the absolute rule of the Chinese Communist Party elites and expand a Chinese empire, not to protect the Chinese people.And so our Department of Defense has ramped up its efforts, freedom of navigation operations out and throughout the East and South China Seas, and in the Taiwan Strait as well. And we’ve created a Space Force to help deter China from aggression on that final frontier.And so too, frankly, we’ve built out a new set of policies at the State Department dealing with China, pushing President Trump’s goals for fairness and reciprocity, to rewrite the imbalances that have grown over decades.Just this week, we announced the closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston because it was a hub of spying and intellectual property theft. (Applause.)We reversed, two weeks ago, eight years of cheek-turning with respect to international law in the South China Sea.We’ve called on China to conform its nuclear capabilities to the strategic realities of our time.And the State Department – at every level, all across the world – has engaged with our Chinese counterparts simply to demand fairness and reciprocity.But our approach can’t just be about getting tough. That’s unlikely to achieve the outcome that we desire. We must also engage and empower the Chinese people – a dynamic, freedom-loving people who are completely distinct from the Chinese Communist Party.That begins with in-person diplomacy. (Applause.) I’ve met Chinese men and women of great talent and diligence wherever I go.I’ve met with Uyghurs and ethnic Kazakhs who escaped Xinjiang’s concentration camps. I’ve talked with Hong Kong’s democracy leaders, from Cardinal Zen to Jimmy Lai. Two days ago in London, I met with Hong Kong freedom fighter Nathan Law.And last month in my office, I heard the stories of Tiananmen Square survivors. One of them is here today.Wang Dan was a key student who has never stopped fighting for freedom for the Chinese people. Mr. Wang, will you please stand so that we may recognize you? (Applause.)Also with us today is the father of the Chinese democracy movement, Wei Jingsheng. He spent decades in Chinese labor camps for his advocacy. Mr. Wei, will you please stand? (Applause.)I grew up and served my time in the Army during the Cold War. And if there is one thing I learned, communists almost always lie. The biggest lie that they tell is to think that they speak for 1.4 billion people who are surveilled, oppressed, and scared to speak out.Quite the contrary. The CCP fears the Chinese people’s honest opinions more than any foe, and save for losing their own grip on power, they have reason – no reason to.Just think how much better off the world would be – not to mention the people inside of China – if we had been able to hear from the doctors in Wuhan and they’d been allowed to raise the alarm about the outbreak of a new and novel virus.For too many decades, our leaders have ignored, downplayed the words of brave Chinese dissidents who warned us about the nature of the regime we’re facing.And we can’t ignore it any longer. They know as well as anyone that we can never go back to the status quo.But changing the CCP’s behavior cannot be the mission of the Chinese people alone. Free nations have to work to defend freedom. It’s the furthest thing from easy.But I have faith we can do it. I have faith because we’ve done it before. We know how this goes.I have faith because the CCP is repeating some of the same mistakes that the Soviet Union made – alienating potential allies, breaking trust at home and abroad, rejecting property rights and predictable rule of law.I have faith. I have faith because of the awakening I see among other nations that know we can’t go back to the past in the same way that we do here in America. I’ve heard this from Brussels, to Sydney, to Hanoi.And most of all, I have faith we can defend freedom because of the sweet appeal of freedom itself.Look at the Hong Kongers clamoring to emigrate abroad as the CCP tightens its grip on that proud city. They wave American flags.It’s true, there are differences. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is deeply integrated into the global economy. But Beijing is more dependent on us than we are on them. (Applause.)Look, I reject the notion that we’re living in an age of inevitability, that some trap is pre-ordained, that CCP supremacy is the future. Our approach isn’t destined to fail because America is in decline. As I said in Munich earlier this year, the free world is still winning. We just need to believe it and know it and be proud of it. People from all over the world still want to come to open societies. They come here to study, they come here to work, they come here to build a life for their families. They’re not desperate to settle in China.It’s time. It’s great to be here today. The timing is perfect. It’s time for free nations to act. Not every nation will approach China in the same way, nor should they. Every nation will have to come to its own understanding of how to protect its own sovereignty, how to protect its own economic prosperity, and how to protect its ideals from the tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party.But I call on every leader of every nation to start by doing what America has done – to simply insist on reciprocity, to insist on transparency and accountability from the Chinese Communist Party. It’s a cadre of rulers that are far from homogeneous.And these simple and powerful standards will achieve a great deal. For too long we let the CCP set the terms of engagement, but no longer. Free nations must set the tone. We must operate on the same principles.We have to draw common lines in the sand that cannot be washed away by the CCP’s bargains or their blandishments. Indeed, this is what the United States did recently when we rejected China’s unlawful claims in the South China Sea once and for all, as we have urged countries to become Clean Countries so that their citizens’ private information doesn’t end up in the hand of the Chinese Communist Party. We did it by setting standards.Now, it’s true, it’s difficult. It’s difficult for some small countries. They fear being picked off. Some of them for that reason simply don’t have the ability, the courage to stand with us for the moment.Indeed, we have a NATO ally of ours that hasn’t stood up in the way that it needs to with respect to Hong Kong because they fear Beijing will restrict access to China’s market. This is the kind of timidity that will lead to historic failure, and we can’t repeat it.We cannot repeat the mistakes of these past years. The challenge of China demands exertion, energy from democracies – those in Europe, those in Africa, those in South America, and especially those in the Indo-Pacific region.And if we don’t act now, ultimately the CCP will erode our freedoms and subvert the rules-based order that our societies have worked so hard to build. If we bend the knee now, our children’s children may be at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party, whose actions are the primary challenge today in the free world.General Secretary Xi is not destined to tyrannize inside and outside of China forever, unless we allow it.Now, this isn’t about containment. Don’t buy that. It’s about a complex new challenge that we’ve never faced before. The USSR was closed off from the free world. Communist China is already within our borders.So we can’t face this challenge alone. The United Nations, NATO, the G7 countries, the G20, our combined economic, diplomatic, and military power is surely enough to meet this challenge if we direct it clearly and with great courage.Maybe it’s time for a new grouping of like-minded nations, a new alliance of democracies.We have the tools. I know we can do it. Now we need the will. To quote scripture, I ask is “our spirit willing but our flesh weak?”If the free world doesn’t change – doesn’t change, communist China will surely change us. There can’t be a return to the past practices because they’re comfortable or because they’re convenient.Securing our freedoms from the Chinese Communist Party is the mission of our time, and America is perfectly positioned to lead it because our founding principles give us that opportunity.As I explained in Philadelphia last week, standing, staring at Independence Hall, our nation was founded on the premise that all human beings possess certain rights that are unalienable.And it’s our government’s job to secure those rights. It is a simple and powerful truth. It’s made us a beacon of freedom for people all around the world, including people inside of China.Indeed, Richard Nixon was right when he wrote in 1967 that “the world cannot be safe until China changes.” Now it’s up to us to heed his words.Today the danger is clear.And today the awakening is happening.Today the free world must respond.We can never go back to the past.May God bless each of you.May God bless the Chinese people.And may God bless the people of the United States of America.Thank you all.(Applause.)

關於 chinese new year introduction ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

「chinese new year introduction」的推薦目錄：

chinese new year introduction 在 Eric's English Lounge Facebook 的精選貼文

About author

chinese new year introduction 在 江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） Facebook 的最佳貼文

About author

chinese new year introduction 在 馮智政 Facebook 的精選貼文

About author

chinese new year introduction 在 The Thirsty Sisters Youtube 的最佳貼文

About author

chinese new year introduction 在 黃紫盈 Connie Wong コニー Youtube 的精選貼文

About author

chinese new year introduction 在 MiniMoochi Youtube 的精選貼文

About author

你可能也想看看

搜尋相關連結

chinese new year introduction 在江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） Facebook 的最佳貼文

chinese new year introduction 在馮智政 Facebook 的精選貼文

chinese new year introduction 在黃紫盈 Connie Wong コニー Youtube 的精選貼文