Here is his report, copied below for your reference. I will attempt to explain the actions of the police from a Chinese perspective.

Law in China serves to protect the Chinese government from the people. In this case the law is there to assist the government in routing out an illegal church. Mr. Schiller, by knowing about the meeting and being in attendance of an illegal protest put himself in harm’s way and was therefore participating in an illegal activity. He took photos of the illegal event and of police. Any illegal activity should not be published for others to see. They are illegal.

The fact that Mr. Schiller is a foreigner is of no consequence. Foreign or not, assembly of this illegal church was illegal. The fact that Mr. Schiller was a reporter is of no consequence. The police confiscated his press badge, which serves no purpose in the eyes of the police. All photos of the illegal event were deleted, all photographic equipment confiscated and examined to make sure that the illegal photos were gone. Because the event was illegal, Mr. Schiller was made to sign a document admitting his guilt. This is justice in China. This signed document can be used in the future as legal grounds to deport Mr.Schiller. This is perfectly legal.

The important message to Mr. Schiller is that a reporter can and will be detained and interrogated by police at any illegal event. The police will now watch Mr. Schiller more closely in the future. Further participation in future events can result in deportation. The police can also intimidate Mr. Schiller without any negative repercussions. They are the enforcers of the law on the people and specifically Mr.Schiller.

It matters little that Mr.Schiller’s right to do his job as a reporter was violated. It matters little that China had agreed that reporters should be able to do their job with relative freedom and without trouble from the police. Chinese law is there to protect the government, not the people nor Mr. Schiller. For Mr. Schiller to say he was doing nothing illegal and happened to be there to “see what would happen” holds no logic. While a church gathering in Canada is certainly not illegal, this is obviously untrue in China. Mr. Schiller was forced to sign a document admitting guilt before he was allowed to leave. He was also not given a copy. This allows the Chinese government to write down all the terms to its advantage. Mr. Schiller cannot receive help from a lawyer in this case because does not have the document he signed. This is to the advantage of the Chinese government and this is done on purpose.

It is good that Mr. Schiller was not beaten by police. He should get his press pass back, but should remember that to police the press pass means very little. In the future Mr. Schiller may be tailed and his phone bugged, as has been done with past foreign reporters in China.

China is not Canada. We cannot put our Canadian values onto Beijing and vent indignation when our right to free speech and other human rights are violated. We nor Chinese citizens have none of these rights in China. They simply do not exist today and have never existed in the past. The important take away message here is that the rule of law in China is to protect the Chinese government from the people, not the people from the government. Understand this and you will live better and longer in China.

Note that before Canadians condemn the actions of Beijing police on Mr. Schiller, remember that over 1,100 citizens of Toronto were also arrested, illegally detained and interrogated by Toronto Police during the G20 last summer. Only a handful were ever charged. The remaining 1,093 detainees were all let go without charge. Detainees were denied food and water and basic human rights for up to 48 hours. Peaceful protesters as well as locals walking around their neighborhood got their heads bashed in and bones broken. Today only 2 police officers are charged with any offenses. Toronto police removed their ID tags prior to beating people up. Illegal it was, and they did get away with it. Before we condemn Chinese police we should fix the same problem in our own backyard here in Canada.

I wish Mr. Schiller well and hopes he continues to report on China affairs. His job and his fellow reports have a though act to follow.

BEIJING—He was young, smiling, wearing purple track suit pants.

She was middle-aged — old enough to be his mother — and wore a print jacket, with dark slacks and a white sun hat.

“Are you here for the church service?” the young Chinese man inquired.

Yes she was, the Chinese woman nodded.

“Well you’ll have to register over here,” he said, and pointed off toward a waiting police van.

The woman hesitated for a moment and seemed to totter. Then several men, who also looked like plainclothes police, surrounded her and corralled her toward the van.

Just as she was getting in and about to be driven off, I decided to take a picture.

That’s when police surrounded me.

I was filmed, photographed, asked for my passport with my journalist’s visa, as well as my press card, and handed them over.

All were returned — except for my press card. An officer said, there “might” be a problem with it. No explanation was given.

It was about 8:30 a.m. Beijing time when I arrived in the city’s northwest precincts to see a group of Chinese Christians conduct a planned Sunday service outdoors, in plan view — a rarity in this country.

But followers of Beijing’s Shouwang Church said they had no choice but to worship outdoors since they had been evicted from their rented premises — and blocked from occupying a new site that they’d purchased with the equivalent of $4 million of their own hard-earned money 15 months ago.

The government was “interfering” with their constitutional rights of religious freedom, they claim on their website.

In Chinese terminology Shouwang is an “underground church,” because its 1,000 followers worship without the blessing of the Communist Party government.

The government allows some Christian worship in China — but only churches it approves and oversees.

Still, tens of millions of Chinese Christians daringly worship independently of Communist control, and Shouwang is among them.

“You’ll have to come with us,” a policeman said after I had taken my photo.

“Under what law or regulation are you preventing me from doing my work?” I asked.

“I will tell you,” he said.

“Well I’d like it if you’d told me now,” I replied. “I have the right to do my proper job as a journalist.”

“I will tell you,” he said with greater volume. “Now come with us!”

I was not roughed up, but a group of police held, pulled and “guided” me out from the plaza where the aborted service was supposed to take place. We walked a couple of blocks to a nondescript building and down a grotty stairwell toward a basement room. A suitable table and set of chairs couldn’t be found there, so we headed up and out toward 15 Zhongguancun Rd., a private building with a small security room.

Along the way we passed scores of police, both uniformed and plainclothes who were shooting video of anyone who passed by.

Finally, I was seated in a tiny room, a camera was set up and turned on, one policeman sat at a desk to take notes, another asked questions and a third observed.

I asked if I could tape the interrogation and was told that I could not.

Then, despite having filmed or photographed all of my documents, we began with a review of all of their contents again.

Then I was asked, why did you come here today?

I had heard an event was about to take place, I said, and I wanted to observe it.

How did I know about it, I was asked.

I had read the church’s website, I said.

Did I know it was illegal to interview people without their permission?

I was not interviewing people, I said.

But did I understand that it was illegal to interview people in Beijing without their permission or the permission of the people for whom they work.

I was not interviewing anyone, I repeated, and I would seek clarification from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about its regulations.

At one point I asked one of the police, “Am I being detained?”

No, the officer said, you are not being detained.

Well if that was the case, I said, then I’d be heading off.

It was made plain — in no uncertain terms — that I was not going anywhere.

Well, if I wasn’t being detained, I said, we could take this session across the street to a restaurant and continue it there.

Again, it was made plain: no one would leave the room.

The policeman doing the questioning was wearing an earpiece and communicating with someone off-site who was passing on questions from time to time.

Then the policeman said: We’d like you to delete the photographs you took today.

I had taken several photographs, including of policemen photographing me, and those photographing my documents.

I was not keen to comply. But I also understood that I had none of the rights that I would have in a similar situation in Canada or the United States or any Western country for that matter. In such countries, I wouldn’t expect to be kept in a room in a private building either for showing up at an event and taking a photograph.

I deleted the photographs as the policeman leaned over to verify that they were in fact deleted. And then he demanded that I quickly review all the photographs currently on the camera to reassure him that the photos I had taken Sunday were in fact deleted.

I complied with that demand, too.

When it came time to review the contents of my interrogation, it was read out loud to me and included a phrase that said I took all “legal responsibility” for the contents of the interview — and it was then that my ears really perked up. Everything would have to be reviewed with utmost care.

And so I did for each of the four pages.

The imagined or mistaken part in which the transcribing policeman had me apologizing for doing my job was then deleted. I had not done so and would not do so, I said. And so the detailed review of my “interrogation” proceeded.

Until a fourth policeman showed up and began shouting.

You’re wasting our time, he said. You don’t need to read this back three or four times. This is ridiculous! Ridiculous, he shouted.

It wasn’t in the least ridiculous, I said. If I, as an employee of my company, was to take legal responsibility for the contents of a policeman’s notes, I had a responsibility to take proper care.

This has nothing to do with your company, he shouted. This is about you, he said, waving his finger.

I reviewed the transcription for a final time, and then they asked me to sign the statement.

Will I get a copy for my records, I asked?

No you won’t, the loud speaking policeman said.

“This isn’t bargaining,” he shouted. “You’re not at the market.”

But how can I be expected to sign a statement and not leave with a copy, I asked.

That’s the way it’s done in China, I was told.

Chinese citizens don’t get copies, he said. You’re not getting a copy either.

Then, suddenly, he left the room and returned moments later demanding my camera.

I had deleted the photos, I said, and those deletions were verified.

He didn’t care and grabbed for my camera and there ensued a little tug-of-war.

After a few minutes he said I could remove the battery as well as the disk.

We only want to take a photo of it, he said.

I complied again, but insisted I come with him.

But no, I was told, I would not be allowed to come with him.

The camera was returned in a few minutes. Whether anything odd was done with it, I can’t say.

But after complying with all the requests, I was informed I’d be leaving without my government-issued press card.

I called the Foreign Ministry and spoke with official, Zhou Li, informing her that the police had confiscated my press card.

“That really shouldn’t be possible,” she said, saying that she would look into it.

The card is issued by the Foreign Ministry and is, in fact, their property.

I had been detained for three hours, interrogated, asked to delete photos and had my press card seized.

An interesting day, but still — nothing compared to the detention of dozens of churchgoers, and the detentions, arrests and disappearances of lawyers, writers, activists and an artist named Ai Weiwei in recent weeks.

China returns press card to Star writer, with a stern warning

BEIJING—Chinese police returned a government-issued press card to a Toronto Star journalist Tuesday, issuing a formal warning that “further violations” of Chinese reporting regulations could lead to “punishment,” including cancelling his visa.

The press card, a separate document also necessary to conduct journalistic work inside China, was seized Sunday by police during a three-hour detention and interrogation session, after the Star photographed police rounding up Christian worshippers as they arrived for an outdoor religious service in Beijing.

Chinese authorities said the service was illegal, since the church — known as Shouwang, or “The Watchtower” — is not approved by the ruling Communist government.

And police claimed that by simply taking photographs without prior permission from local authorities that the Star had violated China’s press regulations.

That interpretation, if strictly enforced, would rewrite the slightly relaxed media regulations that were introduced in 2007, just before the 2008 Olympics.

“It sounds like a reversion to how things were in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when we were frequently detained and threatened with visa non-renewal if we did not behave,” says Rebecca Mackinnon, a former CNN journalist, who is now senior fellow at the Boston-based New America Foundation.

The squeeze on journalistic activity here in recent weeks accompanies China’s biggest rights crackdown in a decade.

It has come in the wake of revolutions rocking North Africa and the Middle East, which have made authorities here nervous.

China’s powerful internal security apparatus, which already commands a bigger piece of the national budget than China’s military machine, is believed to be gaining ever greater clout inside the corridors of Zhongnanhai, the Chinese equivalent of the White House.

Reports say the state’s security czar, 68-year-old Zhou Yongkang, a member of the Politburo Standing Committee who commands the police and the courts, is growing even more powerful.

On Tuesday, during another interrogation by police, the Star learned that the current tightening of media restrictions could turn on the translation and interpretation of two Chinese characters: “cai fang.”

According to an English translation on the foreign affairs website, “cai fang” means “interview.”

Hence, the English translation of the key reporting regulation reads, “A foreign journalist who intends to interview organizations or individuals in China needs to obtain their prior consent.”

The Star conducted no interviews Sunday, but took only photographs.

But on Tuesday, police insisted “cai fang” included photography and a range of journalistic activity — not just interviewing.

Chinese dictionaries indicate that “cai fang” means to gather or to look, but when used in connection with news gathering, some say it can mean interviewing, as well as taking notes or photos, filming and tape-recording.

Mackinnon recalls that in the China of the 1990s she and her CNN crews would occasionally get detained for filming and interviewing on the streets.

“Once we were detained for interviewing bystanders right before president Bill Clinton’s motorcade was scheduled to drive by,” she says. “At that time the police included filming and taking pictures in their definition of ‘cai fang.’ ”

Recent graduates of Chinese journalism schools say the precise meaning of “cai fang” isn’t clear.

“There is no real, clear-cut definition of ‘cai fang,’ ” says one, “even among academic circles.”

China's 60 mile traffic jam of coal trucks lasted 10 days.

Contrary to popular belief, China is still Communist. There has been no change of political will, only the naive belief of foreigners that as China becomes wealthier that China will abide by its own rules of law. This is not the case, as the Toronto Star’s Asia correspondent Bill Schiller, found out. He traveled a little outside Beijing into the countryside only 3 hours train ride away, only to find out that things are run differently in the countryside. Reporters do get hassled and told in uncertain terms to leave.

Surprised he should not be, and from his writing this seemed evident. It sounds like he expected to be questioned, but not hassled by multiple levels of police and politicians.

Let’s set down some assumptions. Schiller is probably an accredited journalist in China, which means that, barring special cases such as Tibet, he can roam the vast expanse of the Middle Kingdom at will, writing whatever drivel that comes out of his middle orifice. Police, army nor politicians should not impede his reporting unless he has broken some law of the land. These privileges are backed up by some big wig bureaucrat in Beijing, and maybe a law that covers foreign journalists. The free reign of foreign journalists in China has been touted as proof positive that China is a welcoming and “open” country to foreign friends.

This is openness is not quite true, as many a foreign journalist has found out. While there has been improvements over the years, even during the 2008 Olympics when all eyes were on China, foreign journalists complained of rough treatment and arrest by Chinese police. China is at least consistent if not fair.

Even if a journalist is roughed up or barred from entering some Chinese location, while there must be a complaints process, such as the Office of Foreign Affairs or such, one should not be surprised if you get no satisfactory result. The damage has already been done, the foreign journalist was barred from what someone believed to be a sensitive Chinese issue, and this was done for the common good of China. The ends justifies the means, at least behind the scenes.

I would hesitate to say that China outright lies about their openness to foreign journalists. No, I think there is a cultural difference that should be noted. If foreign journalists would only report on the good aspects of Chinese life, there would be no issue of banned access. When reporting on a perceived negative or suspect aspects of Chinese life, for the good of the reputation of the greater China and the face of the Chinese race, these foreign devils should expect to get a kick in the keister. This is “openness” Chinese style.

Similar to North America and Europe, China has laws. Dissimilar is that these laws are there to protect the individual from the state and not to protect the state from the individual. This means that laws are used to control civilians and not used to control the government, police or politicians. This difference is very important, as the belief that China’s laws will protect you from a crooked politician’s wrath might land you in isolation for a couple of months in a black jail. As Mr Schiller found out, local politicians and police routinely use this “upper hand” to remove miscreants that have shown up on their patch. They know they are legally allowed to do this and they use it to their advantage.

Let’s get back to Bill Schiller, the TorStar Asia Correspondent and his shiny accredited journalist badge. You are a white foreigner stopped at a truck stop for coal trucks heading into Beijing. If you were Chinese like Jan Wong you might have had better luck, but as is, you stuck out like a sore thumb. There are secret police at near every truck stop in China. What did you expect from local politicians who are trying to cover up their problems with the clogged highway. This is causing Beijing much lost productivity and Beijing politicians much lost face, as this story has been carried around the world. The heat from Beijing travels downstream to these local politicians, who, unsurprisingly, were not welcoming to your presence. Frankly I am glad that Mr Schiller was so accommodating, or he would have been thrown in jail and beaten to a pulp by local police and paid thugs.

This is not a condemnation of the actions of Mr Schiller, only an explanation of why he was treated like a pariah. I realize that he is a journalist and writes stories for a living. I have read as many of his stories as I can and am very thankful for his insights. Still, when there is a sensitive issue in China all journalists, Chinese or foreign, should expect a crackdown from the local and national governments.

It’s nothing personal, Mr Schiller, it is just the way China works. The profession of journalist in China, like the profession of lawyer, can be hazardous to your health. Do as you are expected and you should do just fine. If you think you have been done wrong, you should see what happens to the people that you interview.

Note: The whole legal vs reality dichotomy in China is very intriguing. Cases occur in such regularity but seem to not shock people. Here is another example where an outspoken Chinese magazine, Caijing, researched black jails, which are technically illegal in China. Editors got hounded by the police. Only after they reported being hounded that some Beijing politician stepped in to remove one company. The other hundreds of companies that illegally detain and beat up citizens and throw them into private black jails are still in operation. The highlighted company is closed down, its owners jailed, in order for China and Beijing to save face. It matters little that the huge problem still exists.

Prior to this police investigation, authorities have always denied the existence of the detention centers, and the fact that they’ve acknowledged them is good news. But don’t jump to the conclusion that the government is now committed to cleaning out the black jail system just yet.

After Caijing published its investigation of the illegal security firm, police officers began harassing its editors to reveal its sources, arguing that the article threatened “stability and unity.” It was only after Caijing publicized another article reporting that incident that Beijing’s new police chief personally apologized to the deputy editor, assuring him that no one on the staff would be punished, eventually calling for the investigation.

But even with Anyuanding’s shut down, it is only one company in a long, messy web of officials protecting themselves from “disharmony.” Really curing the country of its black jails will take nothing short of a major petition system overhaul.

Google Street started today, and they sure take some detailed photos.

There’s a pesky grey and white cat at the end of on my driveway. Who it belongs to I know not. It seems to be waiting for the garbage truck, or a taxi. The photo was taken in early spring, because our tulips are in bloom and our apricot tree is showing off their lovely white flowers. It’s about noon time. The image quality of the newly released (to Toronto) Google Street View is pretty amazing, and though I am not sure of its usefulness, it sure is interesting.

The Toronto Star says that all street names and numbers, people’s faces and vehicle license plates are all blurred. This is for privacy purposes, though if you can plop in the address of a home into Google Maps, get to Street View you can navigate, address and all, down the street and point to a house. The address is clearly on the top of the screen.

My concern is that Google Maps is yet another internet tool for the unscrupulous to use for ill. Who will use this tool and for what purpose? I could see that if someone were to plan a home invasion that an easy way to photograph the house would be to let Google do it.

Many tools on the internet often lead to surprising uses, and maybe Google Maps will be one of them. As the internet ever so slowly inches closer to my family and I, I can’t help but feel cautious about my family’s privacy and safety.

Seattle PI Globe, AP Photo/ Elaine Thompson

It is with deep regret that today, March 17 2009, the Seattle Post-Intellingencer has written its own obituary and ceased production of its paper version. In business from 1863-2009, the 146-year old Seattle newspaper served more than 117,600 weekday readers. While the online version will continue, the PI has layed off 90% of its reporters, whittling its staff down to 20 reporters, a shadow if its former self. The PI will certainly be missed.

___Just to disclose that I have no affiliation to the Seattle PI. In fact, I do not recall reading any of their articles, nor referencing the newspaper in online posts or research. Still, one must regret the passing of such an old newspaper that has stood the test of time. Until today.

___My regret is also brought on by my a worry that many other newspapers are also on the brink of collapse, particularly here in Canada. I note that while Canada’s Toronto Star and Globe and Mail circulation numbers are higher than the Seattle PI, looking at circulation by population, they are very much the same. With a population of 528,000 people, the Seattle PI was delivered to 33.6% of Seattle residents. With a population of 2.6m, the Toronto Star weekend edition is delivered to 24% of Torontonians. While you can argue the statistics, suffice it to say that circulation numbers between the newspapers are comparable.

The most widely read paper in the country is the Toronto Star, which, as of the six-month period ending on March 31, 2007, averaged 634,886 copies sold on Saturday, 436,694 Monday to Friday, and 442,265 on Sunday. The second most widely read paper is Toronto-based national newspaper The Globe and Mail, which averaged 410,285 copies on Saturdays, and 322,807 Monday to Friday.

___Perhaps they were simply an organization that lost touch with their readership and deserved to die, dinosaurs in an era of the electronic word. Maybe Seattleites simply do not read news as much as they used to, though I do doubt that. It seems the transition to electronic format somehow went awry for the Seattle PI.

___I can only comment about my own reading habits. I acknowledge that my reading habits are different between online and print newspapers. I use and enjoy both, but they serve me in different ways. Internet news is quick, succinct, efficient, global and targeted to knowledge acquisition. Print newspapers are leisurely, curious, playful, local and mind expanding. One cannot supplant the other.

___I read the vast majority of my news on the internet, though I rarely hit the front page of any newspaper site. I also read widely and internationally. Using the internet I am no longer restricted to regional news. Worthy news is international. When reading with such breadth one can easily get a low signal to noise ratio, or more crudely put, you need to wade through too much crap out there in order to find the news jewels worthy of your time.

___In reading internationally I depend on internet tools to help me find my daily fix of news. I take my top 50 world-wide newspaper sites, filter by keyword, aggregate, sort by reverse date, categorize and serve up my news du jour. With my reading list I can scan the article title and summary. Most articles I leave unread. My browser automatically removes advertising, though global advertising is pretty much useless to me anyway.

___In reading print newspapers I am much more leisurely. Glancing at each page I let my mind wander. Whatever tickles my fancy I read. I entertain divergent opinions and scan topics I would never think about filtering online. You could say that I’m a news window shopper.

___On top of reading from 50 global newspapers I also read over 100 global blogs. Blogs can be entertaining but their signal to noise ratio is much lower than that of global newspapers. While blogs can be entertaining, one quickly realizes that quality writing is a rare skill. The number of blogs I read on a regular basis amounts to a grand total of 5. You really need some pretty sharp internet tools to whittle down the noise out there in the blogosphere, for their sheer weight can literally bury you. To stay on top and search for quality blogs is a constant battle. The ones you find are true gems.

___With the demise of the Seattle PI I worry about the overall content quality of news on the internet. Investigative reporting is so valuable to quality news. Though many blogs try to follow suit, the vast majority simply do not have the talent, resources, connections nor infrastructure to do a good job; not even a good enough job. Good bloggers cite newspapers to bolster their arguments, leaning on them as a reliable news source as well as the inspiration for their blog posting. Real investigative reporting needs real professionals, journalists, like the journalists that just got laid off at the Seattle PI.

___Without journalists internet news would be of much lower quality than it is today. There must evolve a way to reward journalists for their work while evolving news dissemination in electronic format. How this will work remains to be discovered.