By Evelyn Pyburn

In the name of freedom, the world around, we cannot let the events of Tiananmen Square be forgotten.

June 4 marked the 36th anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square, of hundreds and maybe thousands of peaceful protesters. The exact death toll has never been released by the Chinese government, but some have suggested it was as high as 10,000, in part because after the event many were later executed.

For most of the world, the words “Tiananmen Square” instantly evoke the image of a lone man standing valiantly in front of a tank that leads a row of tanks into Tiananmen Square, where the Chinese dictatorship murdered peaceful protestors seeking greater freedom.

The protestors – largely Chinese college students, were totally unarmed. As the tanks entered Tiananmen Square, a lone, unarmed man, who had apparently been shopping, deliberately walked in front of the line of tanks, carrying two shopping bags.

A photographer, who was some distance away, snapped a picture at that moment – a picture that has since become widely heralded as the most famous picture in history. For millions of people around the world, just a glimpse of that iconic picture is instantly recognizable for the statement it makes.  That lone individual, peacefully confronting the tyranny of a massive government military attack conveys an unmistakable and profound message to all who have ever struggled for freedom anywhere, throughout history. By simply standing peacefully, unarmed and determined, in front of such aggressors, this unidentified man made clear for all to see, the true nature of this enduring struggle.

It speaks to everyone – including the aggressors. For that reason the Chinese government has most forcefully and aggressively clamped down on all references and reminders of the incident in the hope that future generations of Chinese citizens will have no knowledge of the nature of their government and its dreadful actions on that day. Their efforts have been largely successful because most young people in China, today, are unaware of anything about Tiananmen Square.

As one Chinese reporter explained, since many of those who were involved or knowledgeable about the horrific event, have either died or are in their 70s and soon will be gone, it will indeed be up to the people in other countries of the world to keep the truth and the memory of Tiananmen Square alive. They must make sure it is never forgotten, because it is as sacred a day in the annals of human freedom, as any can be.

The reporter said, “Few dates are as difficult to say out loud in China as June 4,” adding that in the past few years the repression has increased.

Family members of those murdered were prohibited from mourning and have since been kept under constant surveillance by government officials. Their lives have been that of constant terror for 36 years. Each year as the anniversary date approaches, surviving family members of those who were murdered are required to leave their homes and go into seclusion so they are not accessible to journalists or other inquirers.

One of the unshakable things I read at the time about Tiananmen Square was from an observer who wrote that when the Chinese college students approached US journalists covering the demonstrations, to explain the reason they were demonstrating, they would frequently quote verbatim words from the US Constitution and other founding documents, only to have the journalists stare at them blankly – not recognizing the words they were hearing.

The journalists did not know that the Chinese college students were referencing American history and ideals. They did not understand that those young students knew more about the journalists’ history than they did. The journalists did not recognize that the Chinese students were trying to explain that they were carrying forth that same quest for individual liberty.

How appalling, and undoubtedly a foreboding of the current state of US media today.

Among the 70-year –old survivors, are those who formed a group called the Tiananmen Mothers, who have spent the past 36 years trying to keep the reality of Tiananmen Square alive. Realizing that for the most part younger generations in China do not know about the event, and as the membership of Tiananmen Mothers dwindles, they have resigned themselves to their failure and declared that in the future “reporting on the massacre will be limited to outsiders.” 

So while their voices have been silenced that doesn’t mean the rest of the world must be silent. We can remember on behalf of those who have been silenced.

By Evelyn Pyburn

When liberties seem to be in conflict, one must check their basic premises. One must go back and determine what they know (or don’t know) about the Bill of Rights.

It should be remembered that the whole point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the individual citizen from the over reach of government. It was not intended to dictate how individuals should interact with each other. The Bill of Rights is all about restraining government, not citizens.

So when it comes to issues like discrimination, we should keep in mind that the Constitution is addressing government – government is not supposed to discriminate in how it deals with citizens. Citizens are free to discriminate!

Every citizen discriminates every day in a thousand different ways. It is the human condition that we have to make choices in order to survive and we must be free to do so. We must be free to choose– to discrrimnate.

To attempt to prevent citizens from choosing is not unlike attempting to legislate morality, which is a violation of freedom of religion — a violation of allowing each person to  choose their philosophy about life and the freedom to choose how to live one’s life. It is to attempt to use force to make individual citizens think in some approved way. It is violence against the human mind. Nothing should be considered more vile by human beings, whose very means of survival is the human mind.

To change biases requires addressing the mind. It falls to the very challenging task of persuasion and reason — reason being the hallmark of the human mind.

To coerce people to think some specific way, is an impossible quest, as history has amply demonstrated. It also requires the use of force against people who have not initiated the use of force themselves. The very essence of a free society is accepting that the only moral use of force is for self-defense or the defense of others.

Government is pure force. It is the legalized use of force. Ultimately, everything government does, it does at the point of a gun. That is the vision one should hold in mind when suggesting government should “do something.” The only legitimate use of government in a moral society is to protect its citizens from the use of force by foreign adversaries and to stand as defender and arbitrator when citizens use force, one against another.

Hence, the only legitimate purpose of government in a free society, is the moral use of force. In a moral society government is established in recognition of that fact.  Government should exist to defend the country, the citizens, from outside forces, and to restrain how citizens use force against each other. Such is the purpose of law enforcement and courts, to protect citizens from murder, theft, fraud, government, etc.

Almost all other issues that a society sees as legitimate concerns — such as philanthropy in regard to human kindness, welfare and charity, most issues of health and safety, all of education, research, innovation and community benefits or enhancements — could and would be provided for by the private sector. Many are already provided for in creative ways, and they would be to an even greater extent if not for the competitive interferences of government force. There would be voluntary systems and processes and alternatives that ingenuous citizens would quickly devise should they see a need for them– innovations that would amaze us all.

So in trying to decide when government is right or wrong the conclusion should fall to the issue of force and how much emphasis was put on restraining government in the use of force. Anything that requires the use of force against citizens who have initiated no use of force themselves teeters at the brink of being a crime in and of itself.

For government— or to use government as a surrogate, to force someone — which essentially means using the point of a gun – to do something against their will, has to be seen for what it is – wrong. So when we are told the Constitution says it is illegal to discriminate, or to adhere to one religion over another, or over no religion at all, or that we have to wear a mask, or drive a certain kind of car, or use one cooking stove over another — it is all untrue. It is all a crime against humanity. What the Constitution and the Bill of Rights say is that none of those things should be dictated to any citizen in a free country – most especially since it is an abhorrent violation to choose – a human being’s very means of survival.