‘We Won't Forget': Canada Marks 36th Anniversary of Tiananmen Square Massacre
Canada's embassy in China has issued a statement commemorating the June 4 anniversary of the massacre in Beijing's largest public square, where more than 30 years ago the government violently suppressed a student-led pro-democracy movement.
'We won't forget [June 4,] 1989,' wrote Canada's embassy in China in a June 3 social media
The
Global Affairs Canada also marked the massacre's 36th anniversary, calling it a 'violent crackdown' that killed 'many unarmed and peaceful citizens.'
'To honour the lives lost, Canada continues to call on China to uphold its human rights obligations under international law,' the agency said in a June 4 social media
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre also issued a
Related Stories
6/4/2025
6/4/2024
'Even as the world watched the brutality broadcast live, the Communist government sought to repress the truth of their massacre,' Poilievre said in a June 4 statement.
'They have never shown remorse, and their oppressive tactics continue to be used today,' he added. 'We must not let their denial of history win.'
The federal Conservative Party has been a vocal critic of China's human rights abuses, as well as the Chinese regime's use of transnational
The U.S. government also marked the 36th anniversary of the massacre, saying that while the 'CCP actively tries to censor the facts,' the world 'will never forget.'
'Today we commemorate the bravery of the Chinese people who were killed as they tried to exercise their fundamental freedoms,' Marco Rubio, U.S. secretary of state, said in a June 3
'Their courage in the face of certain danger reminds us that the principles of freedom, democracy, and self-rule are not just American principles,' he added. 'They are human principles the CCP cannot erase.'
To date, the Chinese communist regime has not disclosed the number or identity of those killed in the massacre.
New Generations Unaware
Cheuk Kwan, co-chair of the Toronto Association for Democracy in China, says Beijing's efforts to censor information about the 1989 massacre have led to new generations in China growing up unaware of the incident.
'Even though the world watched in horror 36 years ago, the Chinese government is eager to suppress that information,' he told The Epoch Times, noting the regime's use of censorship methods such as internet blockades and media control.
'A lot of people, a generation later, do not even know that this existed.'
He says this makes efforts to raise awareness of China's oppression more difficult, because 'we have to do double duty to not only commemorate [these events], but also to pass the message to the next generation–to make sure they do not forget.'
The Toronto Association for Democracy in China was founded in May 1989 to support the student protests in Tiananmen Square and continues to advocate for democratic reform in China today.
In recent years, the association has commemorated the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre alongside the 2019 Hong Kong protests, saying the suppression of pro-democracy advocates in both incidents amounts to a 'generational issue' involving the 'Chinese oppression both in Beijing and now in Hong Kong.'
Kwan said that while many in Western countries understand that freedom of expression 'does not exist in China,' the lived reality in China and Hong Kong may still feel distant to them. He added that people in other countries can still support efforts to uphold the values of democracy and freedom.
'It is a duty for all the people who are freedom-loving people to defend this principle of freedom and democracy: the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, and of course, the freedom to voice your opinion without fear of retribution,' he said.
Eva Fu contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stephen Miller Melts Down as Musk Exits With His Wife and an Attack on Trump
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller spammed social media Tuesday night in a raging display of his unwavering support for President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' as it faced increasing backlash from MAGA figures, including Elon Musk. The Trump loyalist went in hard to sell the 1,038-page document that passed the House by a single vote on May 22. Miller's comments came hours after former DOGE chief Musk attacked the mega-spending bill as the legislation moves to the Senate, labeling it a 'disgusting abomination.' The world's richest man also threatened to 'fire all politicians who betrayed the American people' at next year's midterm elections. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk wrote on X. Miller responded by calling Trump's bill 'the most essential piece of legislation... in generations' and 'the most MAGA bill ever passed by the House.' Miller pointedly described those on Trump's side of the argument as the president's 'closest allies.' It is unclear how much personal animus there is between Miller and Musk after the tech billionaire walked out on the administration, taking Miller's wife Katie with him. Katie Miller was hired by DOGE under the same 'special government employee' status as Musk, meaning that she was also time-limited to 130 days in office, but that has done little to quell unsubstantiated internet speculation about Musk and the Millers. She will now reportedly work for Musk full-time. Miller began his own barrage of posts on X, first by claiming Trump's bill would fund increased deportation. '[The bill] will increase by orders of magnitude the scope, scale, and speed of removing illegal and criminal aliens from the United States,' Miller wrote. 'For that reason alone, it's the most essential piece of legislation currently under consideration in the entire Western World, in generations.' 'Now or never,' the 39-year-old wrote in another post. Trump's bill is estimated to increase the budget deficit by approximately $600 billion in the next fiscal year. Miller tried to explain his take on the bill by breaking it down into three sections: 'The most significant border security and deportation effort' in history, a full 'extension and expansion' of Trump's tax cuts and finally cutting almost $2 trillion through 'the largest welcome reform in history.' 'Item 1 alone (border security + deportation),' Miller wrote, 'makes this the most important legislation for the conservative project in the history of the nation.' Critics of Trump's bill fear it would lead to millions of Americans losing health coverage by slashing Medicaid and introducing budget cuts to food assistance programs, with spending on border security and military programs increased. Some Republicans have also expressed fears about the rising cost of the bill, despite a deadline of July 4 to get the measure passed and signed into law. Miller's flurry of posts included him bragging that the bill 'was designed by President Trump and his allies in Congress to deliver on his core campaign pledges to voters and that is exactly what it does. This is the most MAGA bill ever passed by the House, and it's not even close.' 'The bill was designed by President Trump, his loyal aides, and his closest allies in Congress to deliver fully and enthusiastically on the explicit promises he made the American People,' he wrote in another post. Miller also called out GOP Kentucky senator Rand Paul, who told Fox Business his biggest objection to Trump's bill was the addition of '$5 trillion to the debt ceiling' over the next decade. 'Why doesn't Rand ever fight this hard to deport illegals?' Miller asked in a post. Miller clarified Trump's bill would not fund the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or the Environmental Protection Agency. Experts have, however, warned the bill could ruin student loan borrowers and universities and will have an environmental impact through increased mining and logging of public lands to raise revenue. 'We could have never dreamed of a bill like this in 2017,' Miller posted on X. Miller's loyalty comes as other Republican senators have joined Musk in questioning the contents of Trump's bill. At least four are demanding changes, according to Reuters. They include Sen. Mike Lee and Sen. Ron Johnson. While Republicans have a 53-47 seat majority in the Senate, they cannot afford to lose support. Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene revealed she had not read a part of the bulky bill that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence systems for a decade. 'Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of (the bill) that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years,' Greene posted on X. 'I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.' California Republican Jack Kimble was also critical of the bill on Tuesday. He posted on X: 'Full transparency, I did not know that the big beautiful bill was a real budget and would be used to determine spending levels. It seems to me that this is something that should have been made known to those in the House of Representative[s].' When a follower told him 'you're supposed to read the bills before you vote on them' Kimble replied 'Yeah, my bad.' Ron Johnson also agreed with Musk's 'disgusting abomination' comments on the bill. Speaking to NewsNation's The Hill on Tuesday, Johnson said, 'He's telling the truth... that's all I'm doing, too.' 'The trajectory of deficits is up, and no matter what the 'big, beautiful bill' does, it does not address that long-term prospect, it does not bend the deficit curve down. It supports it going up.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Trump was already aware of 'where Elon Musk stood on this bill' and that he would not be changing it. 'This is one, big, beautiful bill,' Leavitt said on Tuesday. 'And he's sticking to it.'
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong charged under Beijing-imposed security law for second time
HONG KONG (AP) — Prominent Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong on Friday was charged with conspiracy to collude with foreign forces to endanger national security under a Beijing-imposed law that critics say has crushed Hong Kong's once-thriving pro-democracy movement. The prosecution was the second time Wong has been charged under the sweeping national security law. He was already convicted in a separate subversion case linked to an unofficial primary election and was sentenced last year to four years and eight months in jail for that charge. The prosecution accused Wong, 28, of conspiring with fellow activist Nathan Law and others to ask foreign countries, institutions, organizations or individuals outside of China to impose sanctions or blockades, or engage in other hostile actions, against Hong Kong and China. They also said he disrupted the formulation and implementation of laws and policies by the Chinese and Hong Kong governments, and that the act was likely to have serious consequences. The alleged offenses occurred between July 2020 and November 2020. The prosecution didn't elaborate on the accusations in court. The charge carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. After hearing the charge in court, Wong, who wore a blue shirt and was visibly thinner, said he 'understood' the charge. The case was adjourned to August. National security police arrested Wong in Stanley, an area in southern Hong Kong, over the national security charge and also on suspicion of 'dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of indictable offense," police said in a statement. Wong rose to fame in Hong Kong in 2012 as a high school student leading protests against the introduction of national education in the city's schools. Two years later, he became world famous as a leader of the Occupy Movement. In 2016, Wong co-founded a political party named Demosisto with fellow young activists Law and Agnes Chow. In the 2019 pro-democracy movement, Wong helped seek overseas support for the protests. His activism led Beijing to label him an advocate of Hong Kong's independence who 'begged for interference' by foreign forces. Demosisto disbanded when Beijing imposed the security law in 2020. The Chinese and Hong Kong governments said the law brought back stability to the city. In 2023, Hong Kong authorities offered rewards of 1 million Hong Kong dollars ($127,600) for information leading to the arrests of Law, who moved to Britain, and some other overseas-based activists.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Committing to the Chicago Principles of free speech is the only way forward for higher education
I've been a faculty member at the University of Chicago for 27 years; for 12 of them, I was married to the university's late president, Robert J. Zimmer. Bob was well known for his endorsement of the 'Chicago Principles' addressing academic free speech, which were formulated by a faculty committee he appointed in 2014. Now, in 2025, at a time when opposing ideological forces threaten to rip higher education apart altogether, it's clearer than ever we need to observe these principles if we are to maintain our universities as places for inquiry and learning rather than the nurturing of ideologies. First of all, let's be clear. Academic free speech and public free speech are not the same, and the Chicago Principles refer to the former, repeating a view of speech on campus with roots deep in the university's history. 'There is not an institution of learning in the country in which freedom of teaching is more absolutely untrammeled than in the University of Chicago,' remarked university President William Rainey Harper in 1902. Thirty years later, at a time of tension over a communist speaker on campus, President Robert M. Hutchins wrote that students 'should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself.' Today, when being either for or against the position of our national government comes with undue risk and when free speech seems to many to be an insoluble problem, these principles — what they allow and what they do not — offer us simple guidelines as the American university faces two crises, both political in nature. The first crisis is one of free speech — and free thought — under attack. Faculty across the country face constraints on the ability to express a liberal opinion on any controversial matter, especially if related to DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) or other 'woke' topics. One of my friends from another university worries that despite her U.S. passport (she's originally Japanese) the ICE men will kidnap her off the street because her work is in gender, disability and health. She doesn't expect her administration to step in if she's detained — too many college administrations are primarily worried about losing additional government funding. My friend is not being paranoid, and that's pretty terrifying in a country known for tolerance and freedom. Professors and students have been shut down or removed (or have fled the U.S.) for their views. Just think of Rümeysa Öztürk, whose great crime appears to have been co-authoring a pro-Palestinian op-ed for her school newspaper while on a valid F-1 visa. Never mind the Chicago Principles, ICE's overreach in her case violates the First Amendment: The government shall not interfere with freedom of expression. Öztürk was not disruptive or violent. She simply published a point of view. Are we willing to let go of this democratic cornerstone that enables public discourse and government accountability? Don't we want to push back even a little? The second crisis is arguably one of pushing free speech too far. Some students and faculty on campuses around the country seem to be confusing vandalism and disruption with the function of learning. Is using a bullhorn an example of academic free speech? If you thereby chill the main function of a university, offering an education, by disrupting classes and students, the Chicago Principles would say it's not. Nor is taking over a campus quad, vandalizing university property, throwing paint or harassing people you disagree with. Free speech on campus is enabled by certain limits of time, place and manner that keep it manageable for all. The university 'may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment … or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the university.' Without such limits a university will have difficulty following its calling. If the future of the university itself is now at stake, as so many seem to agree, it would be a good time to reinstate our commitment to these principles. University presidents need not have to decide whether or not to call in the police if tent cities spring up on campus and administrative buildings are taken over. It should never get to that stage in the first place. ____ Shadi Bartsch is a professor in humanities at the University of Chicago and former director of the Institute on the Formation of Knowledge. _____
