Painted Skin: Real activities in fake propaganda, fake organizations in real activities, real groups in fake organizations, fake propaganda by real groups

Jun 23

The three organizers on the poster basically did not participate in the hosting work, so they are not considered organizers. The event was hosted by the real organizer. The speaker was invited, but was interrupted by a member of a certain organizer on the poster; the musician was invited, but at the beginning of the performance, it was interrupted by a party who wanted to be the organizer but was rejected by the organizer on the poster. This party participated in two events hosted by a certain organizer on the poster last year, and the first time it really became the organizer on the poster at that time. However, last year and this year, a total of three events, to exaggerate, were actually hosted by the real organizer of this event.

I believe that most people who can read this article have already read the statements issued by Fu Ci and Lin Shu on the evening of June 9, so I will not repeat what they said in their respective statements [1]. Fu Ci stated at the beginning of his statement that he was speaking as "one of the organizers and host of this event." There is no doubt that Fu Ci did a lot of work during the preparation and implementation of the event. Although each of the 13 organizers of this event (we will discuss why this number is chosen later) is indispensable, I do need to point out that without the work done by Fu Ci, the cost and difficulty of this event in all senses would be several orders of magnitude higher.

As for me, I was the "chief designer" of this event. I mainly talked about it. If I did any work, it was basically before the event started. To be more specific, my role in this event was to "design" this series of processes, that is, what songs to perform, which speakers to invite, what the order is, and who is responsible for renting, purchasing or transporting what hardware equipment before the event starts. In these aspects, I have a relatively large say, especially in the process itself. Of course, I was also at the scene throughout the whole process and witnessed the second half of Gu Shuhua's incident.

I don’t know how many people in this circle have heard of me. I guess not many. After all, I have a lot of things to do, but I am lazy and often delay things. I have never been able to set aside enough time and energy to visit people, make friends, and manage my image. I am even too lazy to finish writing many articles, and too lazy to find a place to publish them after writing them. I have not been involved in the movement for a long time, just a little over two years, and I have not done anything big. I am just willing to think about some problems with friends and try some new things.

Friends who are familiar with me know that I have never been enthusiastic about offline activities. I used to at least go to various activities, say hello to people, and smoke a few cigarettes. In the past year or so, I have been too lazy to even go to the activities. As for the experience of organizing such activities, I have even less experience. As the main organizer, I have only participated in three times, including this time: June 4th in 2023, the first anniversary of the White Paper Movement in November 2023, and June 4th in 2024.

I have been dragging my feet on writing this article until now, and I am really sorry to my friends who have been following this event. Your enthusiasm, perseverance and sense of justice are far superior to mine. However, I have encountered a very sad thing in the past few days. It is the biggest trauma I have suffered in the two years of political work, which has made it impossible for me to concentrate on other things. It was probably the night before yesterday, while thinking about this matter, I was flipping through photos of past activities, and I felt mixed emotions.

June 4th Commemoration Activities in 2023

White Paper Movement 1st Anniversary Commemoration Event in November 2023

Now looking back at these events, from the first one when I was completely clueless and could not do anything, I barely arranged one song, to the second one when I had some ideas and wanted to do something fancy and perform more songs, I really rehearsed once or twice, and I thought the effect should be good, but the weather was not good, and the heavy rain started at the beginning of the event and ended at the end. Then to the most recent one, the music was the core, and the effect was better than expected. The whole band, from the first rehearsal to the performance, only took 13 days, and in the end, this was the effect. I think no matter from which aspect, I am worthy of myself, and I am also worthy of the expectations of my friends around me. I can even say confidently that in this weird environment of Toronto, anyone else may not necessarily do better than me.

These past few days, I have been replaying the classic "We've Come So Far" (思えば遠くへ來たもんだ) by the Kaien Team on and off. "Think about where we're going after all this journey." I can do things I couldn't do before, try things I didn't do or didn't achieve last time, and hope for things I didn't dare to hope for before. It's not because I've become more capable, but because there are more capable people around me. Although I haven't figured out why they're so desperate to play with me, and why they can tolerate me all the time, the bond we have formed is irreplaceable by any organizational relationship, let alone a certain organization that can recruit them. You know, before Gandalf and Frodo set out from Rivendell, they didn't ask the Council of Elrond to register the expedition as a 501(c)(3) before they could do anything. Although times have changed and the elves have long returned to Valinor, some things will not change. The Anduin River will not flow backwards, and a few goblins should not be so foolish as to go against our fellowship.

First of all, we should make clear a basic fact, that is, the performance at Hart House Circle at the University of Toronto at 8 pm on June 4 was not an isolated event, but a part of a whole series of commemorative events (and the last part). According to the record of the meeting of the "June 4th 35th Anniversary Co-organizer Group" on March 18, the earliest event in this series was the screening of "Xing Tong in Prison" on April 28, and then there were several other events in May, including laying flowers at the Statue of Democracy, until the June 4th candlelight vigil held at Mel Lastman Square in Toronto on June 1, and then the two events on June 4.

So what is the nature of this "co-organizing group"? What specific role did it play in the entire preparatory process? Here I will also only talk about some basic facts. First of all, this "June 4th 35th Co-organizing Group" is composed of three organizations, namely the Toronto Support Chinese Democracy Movement, the Democratic China Front and the Citizens Association , and held the first preparatory meeting on March 4. The main leaders of the three organizations, including me, basically attended. I was unable to find the records that were compiled and published directly after the meeting (because the WhatsApp group had not been established at the time), but some of the chat records I collected around this meeting show:

Some people repeatedly suggested that the China Democratic Party should be allowed to participate in the preparation of the event as the organizer, but this idea was eventually rejected after a debate . I have not been able to find any written records of the specific reasons.
The activities on the evening of June 1 were led by the Civic Movement Association. The protest in front of the Chinese Consulate and the march to the University of Toronto on the evening of the 4th were also led by the Civic Movement Association. However, the subsequent activities at the Hart House Circle of the University of Toronto were basically assigned to the Civic Movement Association.
The Democracy Movement Association requested that the activities of the Citizens' Association on the 4th should not be named "Candlelight Vigil" or similar words . They wanted to reserve the right to use this name for the activities on the 1st. The person in charge of the Citizens' Association agreed to this request.

Next, the "co-organizer group" held another preparatory meeting on the evening of April 17. There should not be much content about the June 4th event at this meeting, but there is a decision that is worth noting: the Democracy Movement Association is responsible for making posters and other promotional materials for the June 1st event, while the Citizens Association is responsible for making posters and other promotional materials for the two events on the 4th. In other words, the version of the poster follows the date . Only one poster is needed for one event on June 1st, and although there are two events on the 4th, they are connected, so they can be presented directly on one poster. In addition, although everyone agreed and clarified which organization was responsible for which event in these meetings, the posters are not separated, and the names of the three organizations must be written on them.

The Democracy Movement and the Citizens Association released their own posters (see below) on April 29 and May 9 respectively. The preparatory meeting held on the evening of May 7 (the last one before the event) mainly discussed some specific procedures for the June 1 event and decided to hold a press conference for the June 4th commemoration event on the morning of May 13.

What I have introduced above are probably some background content, mainly the several preparatory meetings of the co-organizers and the content related to the June 1 event. From here, I will turn to the organization and rehearsal process of the June 4 performance.

Due to space constraints, I will not discuss here the things we tried to do but ultimately failed to do or arrange for various reasons (for example, we once considered shooting a 2-minute promotional video for the event). The basic points used in this article on the June 4 event are the "Event Arrangements" (pictured below) that I came up with as the "chief designer" of the event, shared with all staff on the evening of June 3 after discussion, modification, and approval, and were also carried out almost intact from beginning to end at the event the next day.

For reasons of length, and also to protect (at least to some extent) the privacy of the musicians and our rules of action, I will not discuss here who went to each rehearsal, where, how it was arranged, how the score was changed to what it is now, etc. However, by sorting out the existing materials, I still arranged the main information and time points into the following table, and made a simple sorting of the organization and planning process in chronological order (see the figure below).

There are still some additional explanations needed here. First, I saw many people on the Internet saying things like "they are the organizers" and "their venue", and felt that it was inappropriate for Lin Shu to raise gender issues and other issues here, as if Lin Shu had to come here (see the picture below). This is completely wrong. The fact is that I asked her in April if she was willing to speak at the event, and she agreed at the time. On May 19, we confirmed it again , and she also participated in the last rehearsal on June 3. This is why the second paragraph of her speech specifically mentioned the meaning of several songs performed before and after her - she had roughly felt it during the rehearsal and felt that it should be integrated into the text of the speech. As for the issue of the speech mentioned by others, I would also like to state here: Lin Shu showed me her speech before the event started, and I agreed, telling her that it was a good way to speak, and if she had any opinions, please come to me to reflect .

Second, through the "Organization and Planning Timeline", we can easily see that there are only 13 days from the first rehearsal (May 23) to the event (June 4), and in fact, the actual rehearsal time is only about 2 hours, at most 3 hours, and the total time is less than 10 hours. In addition, the more important point is that the musicians who participated in the performance this time, except for the drummer and the lead singer who had some dealings with each other before, the rest of the musicians did not know each other at all. Through common sense and rationality, we can know that not only does it take time to practice these six songs (according to my estimation, "Kill the Shijiazhuang Man" and "White Dove" need at least one and a half hours of practice before we can talk about the effect), but also the band performance needs to have coordination and tacit understanding, and coordination and tacit understanding are not dropped from the sky, but take time to run in and get familiar with each other. Now I have uploaded the video of the entire event to YouTube (see the end of the article). I think the audience will naturally have their own opinions on whether the final presentation is acceptable.

However, I must say this point no matter what, and I will emphasize it again at the end of this article: it was only 13 days from the first rehearsal to the performance, and more than half a month from the performance to the publication of this article. Even if I am not one of the organizers, as an outsider, is it too much to ask the "independent investigation team" of the Civil Human Rights Front to issue a phased report and a future roadmap? If the Civil Human Rights Front wants to argue that no one in the group does this full-time, then I think first of all, I was not planning the June Fourth event full-time. Not to mention that I also have to work to earn money, even if it is related to politics, I also gave two speeches during this period. The first one was a little easier and shorter. It was at the screening of the White Paper Movement documentary on May 24. I prepared notes of four to five thousand words and spoke for about 20 minutes. The second one was more complicated. It was at the fourth session of the Citizens’ Association Reading Club on the evening of May 30. Fu Ci (one of the main organizers of the event and the host of the event) led the audience to read Professor Jeremy Brown’s "June Fourth: The Tiananmen Protests and Beijing Massacre of 1989". After Fu Ci, Zhou Fengsuo (who participated as a guest) and Professor Zhou Jierong finished sharing, I spoke for about 40 minutes on the relationship between the 1989 Soviet and Eastern European upheavals and the June Fourth Tiananmen Movement. In addition, I had to rehearse with them during the day on the 30th. As for the other staff, none of them are idle and lying at home every day. Many of them have to go to work or have many other things to do. Not to mention the four musicians, they are either at work or at work and school at the same time. Every time they rehearse, they have to coordinate their time and get up early, then come all the way to rehearse for a few hours, and then leave immediately to work or go to school as soon as the rehearsal is over.

The question I want to raise is very simple: How much have we done in 13 days, and how much have you done in more than half a month? I am not even mocking here, but everyone really does not know.

Before entering the event on June 4, there is perhaps the most important question that needs to be answered, which is who is organizing this event?

First of all, we must make one thing clear: The poster for the June 4 event does not reflect the actual situation . That is to say, although the poster clearly lists the three organizations, the Civic Association, the Democratic Movement, and the Civil Human Rights Front, and also conveys the meaning that the Civic Association is the host and the other two organizations are co-organizers. However, whether these three organizations are co-organizers or host or what, they actually did not participate in the planning and rehearsal of the event from beginning to end . Objectively speaking, there is only a problem of distance, that is, some organizations or individuals in certain organizations may be closer to the event at a certain moment, and help or make some suggestions, while others are far away most of the time. If I want to put it more directly, that is, these three organizations have done some publicity for the event and forwarded it on their own social platforms, but other than that, whether they are the host or co-organizer, they actually did not hold it.

I am not saying here that these three organizations don't care about the success or failure of this event, or that some people in the organizations are lazy, careless, and don't care about this event. I don't mean that. I just want to point out that the vast majority of the real organizers of this event have nothing to do with the three organizations listed on the poster. Not only are they not members of any organization, they haven't even had much intersection with them in the past.

Specifically, at the beginning of this article, it was mentioned that there were 13 organizers of the event. So how was this number calculated? In fact, it is very simple, that is , the musicians (5) + the host (1) + the speakers (3) + the staff (3) + myself (1) , and at most the photographer (the photographer had some problems this time, so he is generally not included). On the day of the event on June 4, of the 13 people, I was of course considered to be from the Civic Association, Wei Yihan was considered to be from the Civil Human Rights Front, and Fu Ci was a dual member of the Civil Human Rights Front and the Civic Association at the time, so in total, three people had connections with these three organizations, and we all know that Fu Ci announced his withdrawal from the Civil Human Rights Front and the Civic Association on June 12, so now there is one less [2]. In addition, we should also realize that the five musicians of this event have no connection with these three organizations, and Lin Shu and Toronto Square Face naturally have no connection either. Therefore , 9 of the 12 items in the "Event Arrangements" were completed by people outside these three organizations . Of the remaining 3 items, the opening words and closing remarks were read by Fu Ci, who has already withdrawn from these two organizations, and the poetry recitation was done by Wei Yihan. No matter how you look at it, I don’t think these three organizations played any role in this event, and I have to point out that this is not my personal opinion. This is why Lin Shu emphasized the “real organizers” in her statement, and why Fu Ci’s statement also has a paragraph specifically stating that the event has nothing to do with the Citizens Association and that any problems will be borne by the “specific organizers”. This is the reason, and this is the fact.

At 10pm on June 3, I convened a final meeting with the organizers, and decided that the work on the 4th would be divided by 6pm, and what we needed to complete before 6pm (basically, all the hardware equipment had to be in place before 6pm), and what needed to be done between 6pm and 8pm. After the meeting, as mentioned above, I shared the revised event schedule with all the organizers again, and then spent an hour or so writing the host script for the event, and sent it to Fu Ci to print a few copies during the day (see the text of the host script at the end of the article).

As for what actually happened on the night of June 4, I happened to see an article published on June 12 a few days ago, claiming to be "a documentary report by our reporter (volunteer) at the June 4th commemoration venue at the University of Toronto" (see the screenshot below), so I thought I would start with this short article full of errors and omissions, and try to tell what I know in a reverse and positive way [3].

1. At about 5:00 p.m. on June 4, the reporter arrived at the University of Toronto's 35th anniversary commemoration of the June 4 Incident and immediately discovered that the scene was different from all the previous commemorations.

The first sentence was wrong. The event started at 8pm. The reporter arrived at 5pm. What could he see? Fu Ci, I and one or two others were the main force in transporting musical instruments and other hardware. We didn't arrive until 5:30. What was he looking at there at 5pm?

2. On the rostrum, except for the Tibetan Snow Lion flag and various colored striped flags that appeared from time to time, replacing the flags of other commemorative organizations that were originally solemn and sad,

First of all, even if we say that the old comrade is confused about what the "colorful flags" are, he should not be confused about what the "Tibetan Snow Lion Flag" is, right? Below are some photos of the stage during the event. I didn't see the "Tibetan Snow Lion Flag" anywhere. I don't know why he said that.

Secondly, what does it mean to “replace the flags of other commemorative organizations that were originally solemn and sad and reflective”? Why did the author contrast the “Tibetan Snow Lion Flag and various colored striped flags” with the “flags of other commemorative organizations”? Does the author mean that only the flags of various commemorative organizations are “solemn and sad and reflective”, and other flags are not? I don’t know what the Tibetan community will think when they see this article. Secondly, I don’t remember saying that the three organizing organizations that appeared on the event posters, namely, the Democratic Movement, the Civil Human Rights Front, and the Civic Association, should be prohibited from doing publicity on site, and I don’t think other organizers would say such things.

3. A group of people on the rostrum who had never been seen before were performing various songs and dances. The scene seemed more cheerful and relaxed than before.

First, it’s OK that the author didn’t know me, but if the author didn’t recognize Fu Ci and Wei Yihan, then I guess he hadn’t participated in many democracy movement activities before, and hadn’t been to the consulate very often, otherwise, he couldn’t have failed to recognize them; second, is there anything wrong with “never seen before”? Could it be that the author expects the faces this year to be the same as they were ten or twenty years ago? If the people this year are the same as they were twenty years ago, and the same will be true next year and the year after, I think this can only represent stagnation; third, I hope there will be a chance to arrange “all kinds of songs and dances” in the future, but this year is a pity that there are only a few songs and no dances; fourth, “the scene seems more cheerful and relaxed than before” is a personal subjective feeling, which is not discussed, but I also need to point out that it may look cheerful and relaxed visually, but it may not be the case in the text. Lin Shu has published the full text of her speech. I don’t think it is cheerful and lighthearted. As for the lyrics of the other songs, I think a quick check will reveal that there is nothing “cheerful and lighthearted” about them. Instead, many of them are full of “bitterness and hatred”, especially “Song of the Seagull”, the lyrics of which are poems written by Lin Zhao. Could it be that the author thought that Lin Zhao’s poems written in prison were cheerful and lighthearted? [4]

4. According to some defense lawyers, this is also a change and reform in the form of commemoration, mainly to attract more political groups to participate in the commemoration, and to arrange a speech by a Palestinian representative to commemorate June 4. Highlighting "political correctness"

I don’t know who these “partial defense counselors” are, and I hope the author will clarify. At least I have not said this publicly. And assuming that I did say this, I will not retract my words, because I don’t think there is any problem with this. The problem is the author’s last sentence in this paragraph, because Lin Shu is not a “Palestinian representative.” Her identity was mentioned by Fu Ci when he introduced her to the stage. Maybe the author didn’t listen carefully, but it doesn’t matter. The video of Lin Shu’s speech includes the part where Fu Ci introduced her. If necessary, you can watch the video to verify it. However, the author can at least make it clear here that Lin Shu’s speech was arranged by the organizer, not that she came up to make trouble on her own. This is already a level higher than many netizens I mentioned earlier.

5. The traditional commemorative organizations were arranged around the stage, watching the dancers and singers on the stage. There were no speeches and passionate slogans, and the traditional candlelight party was nowhere to be seen.

First, let’s assume that the “original traditional commemorative organization” refers to the Civil Human Rights Front and the China Democratic League. The fact is very clear: I did not arrange people from these two organizations to be on the stage. In fact, from the following photo, we can see that the first thing the China Democratic League did after it came with the parade was to place various propaganda banners on the stage and in front of the monument.

Second, "sparsely watching the dancers on the stage", if the author feels that the number of people in the photo below is not large enough, then I will have to review and see how to attract more people in the future. As for whether the more diverse political demands that more participants will inevitably bring will make the author happy, it is hard to say.

Third, whether speeches and slogans must be there, and if so, whether they must be the core, this is a matter of personal preference and judgment. Different people bring different styles to activities, at least I can accept it. Moreover, since many people have already been arranged to speak and many slogans at the event on the 1st and the event in front of the Chinese Consulate on the evening of the 4th, do we really need to do it again at our event? In addition, regarding the issue of "candlelight vigil", it has been made clear before that "the Democracy Movement Association requested that the activity of the Citizens' Association on the 4th should not be named "candlelight vigil" or similar words. They want to reserve the right to use this name for the activity on the 1st. The person in charge of the Citizens' Association agreed to this request." It seems that it can be seen from here that the author probably did not go to the event on the 1st, and was not very clear about the specific situation, so he wrote "documentary report" here.

6. At that time, only the nearly 100 members of the Chinese Democratic Party Canada 🇨🇦 branch who were not allowed by the organizer to attend and speak at the meeting, under the sincere leadership of the party leader Chairman Yu, gathered separately at the side of the memorial meeting and shouted slogans to commemorate "June 4th". Only then did the past memorial scene reappear!

First, as to whether the China Democratic Party will be the organizer of the entire series of June 4th activities, I have already mentioned this at the beginning of this article. Second, I do not know where the number of “nearly 100 members” was calculated from, because the list of people participating in the event given on the Democratic Party’s own website only shows 40 people at most, and the photos released do not look like there are “nearly 100 members” [5].

Second, the most important point is that as one of the organizers of the event, I must criticize the Democratic Party. No one stopped you from shouting slogans, but can you be a little more self-conscious? The first song of the event, "White Dove", had already begun, and you were still shouting and yelling, directly interfering with the performance. Even in the video of the event, you could clearly hear the noise. As a result, more than two weeks have passed, not only did you not give an explanation, but after I first uploaded the video of the event and pointed out that "the noise at the beginning came from the China Democratic Party", I started to scold you internally, saying "How can anti-communism be noise?" This is completely a replica of Kong Yiji's "Can the work of scholars be considered stealing?" I would like to ask you to put yourself in their shoes and think about it. Suppose in the future, when you hold an event and invite Wang Dan or someone else to speak on stage, and then I bring a group of people to the stage to play music and sing, and someone comes to question me and I use the same sentence to counter, what would you think?

As for the last two paragraphs of this short article, I don’t have much to say. Instead, I hope that the “independent investigation team” of the Civil Human Rights Front will contact and interview the reporter of this “documentary report” to see what else he, as an eyewitness to the event, has to say.

Regarding the events at this event, I don't have much to say, because the link to the full video of the event is below, and the basic facts are there. I just have a few comments that need to be made clear here. First, regarding the Democratic Party, I must write about it in the article. It would be irresponsible if I didn't say what I saw. I'll stop here in this article, and there's nothing more to say. As for what to do next, even if you and I don't know now, we will know when we meet next time.

Second, regarding the matter of the FDC and Gu Shuhua, I have the following opinions:

After the incident, the Civil Human Rights Front could have issued a statement earlier, saying that we were just in name only, and that they didn’t tell us anything during the preparation period. They just asked if we could help provide a few sets of tables, chairs and benches, and we did so. That was all. We, the organizers, didn’t have the opportunity to participate in the work of the organizers, so how could we bear the responsibility of the organizers? This is too unequal in power and responsibility. In fact, we are all the off-stage faction, and they are the on-stage faction. No matter whether it is Gu Shuhua or anyone else, they can’t really blame the organization for what they did. The Civil Human Rights Front can say this, but the window of time that allows the Civil Human Rights Front to say this has long been missed;
In the video recording of Lin Shu's speech, people don't even need to watch the video, just put on headphones and listen to it from beginning to end, and you can tell that she was interrupted twice, and the rhythm of her speech was disrupted. This is a fact, which means that even if the Civil Human Rights Front eventually finds out that Gu Shuhua was singing Qinqiang, her behavior is still very problematic, and she should apologize to those who were interrupted and disturbed;
It may be understandable that the investigation team was not established until June 9 and 10, but after two weeks there was no movement. Even if I can understand it, outsiders certainly cannot understand it. After all, this is not the assassination of President Kennedy, which requires a large-scale investigation for a year or two and produce a document of eight or nine hundred pages. Moreover, even if it really takes a year or two to investigate, in order not to miss any clues, in order to find clues, not only do they have to apply for construction permits, dig deep at the scene of the event, collect DNA from a large number of people, and check the photos taken by the US reconnaissance satellite on that day, but they also have to publicly release progress updates and future plans.
The two questions raised by Lin Shu on Twitter (one about the independence of the investigation team and the other about the scope of the investigation team’s work) [6], in my opinion, need to be responded to immediately for a very simple reason: first, if this investigation team is indeed going to investigate what happened between Gu Shuhua (the Civil Human Rights Front) and Lin Shu, and the transgender community, then it is definitely inappropriate for the investigation team to be composed entirely of members of the Civil Human Rights Front. The name “independent investigation team” should be removed first, and people outside the Civil Human Rights Front, especially members of the transgender community, should be invited to join the investigation. Second, if this investigation team is only investigating the quarrel within the Civil Human Rights Front, then there is even less to say. After all this fuss, it is just investigating their own internal affairs. Why should we get involved? What results can we expect? But the problem is that this is not the Civil Human Rights Front’s internal affairs. No matter how much the Civil Human Rights Front feels that this is a fight between Civil Human Rights Front members, it is not the Civil Human Rights Front’s internal affairs, because this incident happened at an event, and the event was a public event. Moreover, the poster for this public event clearly stated “Democratic China Front”.
Lin Shu is my good friend, and we have always cooperated. This time, it was me who invited her to speak at the event, so, disrupting her would mean disrupting the progress of the event, which would mean disrupting me.

Since this matter is related to the Civil Human Rights Front and me, then logically, I should write down what I did, and announce what I would do if the Civil Human Rights Front did not do something by a certain time. Then I should also put forward some demands on the Civil Human Rights Front, suggesting that the organization should make certain reforms, establish certain mechanisms, and organize certain learning activities. Or, to put it more directly, I should ask the Civil Human Rights Front to issue a public statement to apologize and expel Gu Shuhua and so and so. To be honest, I no longer have any expectations for the Civil Human Rights Front, and I can no longer convince myself why I should waste my time and effort to list one, two, and three points.

In fact, even if I said that I only recently discovered that the Civil Human Rights Front was a shell organization, I probably knew from the first day that the Civic Association, as an organization, was like an unqualified firework, which went out after being opened for only two sprays. After the Civic Association was officially established in May 2022, it enjoyed a leisurely summer and reached a lot of people through the June 4th activities, at least so many that the welcome event became the only welcome event of the Civic Association so far, which was enough to support the organization's internal activities every week or half a month during the summer months.

From the protest on October 1, 2022, to the World Human Rights Day event on December 10, during these 10 weeks, the Citizens Association participated in, co-organized, and independently organized a total of 8 protests. Among them, the largest one in terms of scale and impact was undoubtedly the event in front of the Chinese Consulate after the Urumqi fire at the end of November. During that month, Yang Ruohui experienced many firsts. Not only did he direct such a large-scale protest for the first time, but he also accepted an interview with Canada's largest newspaper "The Globe and Mail" as early as November 17. [7] Since this was more than a week before the outbreak of the White Paper Movement, he may have been among the entire overseas student group, if not the first, at least one of the first few to be interviewed by the mainstream media in the country where he was studying.

At that time, Yang Ruohui was the head of the Citizens Association, and he had indeed been active in this capacity. The Citizens Association was the only political group in the Toronto area that looked like it was made up of Chinese students. His operations and efforts during the White Paper Movement were not just empty talk. After all, such activities would not fall from the sky by themselves. And all his work was certainly not in vain. To put it bluntly, Yang Ruohui did earn a career for himself through what he did during the White Paper Movement, and confirmed his position in the circle of the new generation of overseas activists that emerged after the White Paper Movement. But the problem is that people only know that there is a Yang Ruohui in Toronto, and Yang Ruohui is the head of the Citizens Association, so it seems that people naturally think that this organization will be so and so.

In fact, as the reputation of the Citizens Association and Yang Ruohui grew, the Citizens Association itself became more and more hollow. By the end of the year, the Citizens Association had basically achieved "zero" women and sexual minorities within the organization, and almost all of them withdrew. Another situation that I still remember very clearly is that in early December, there was a new member who had just joined for four or five days. He was a very talented person and I always respected him. At that time, I kept telling my friends that he was the Furtwängler of the Citizens Association. As a result, because he expressed his political stance in the group, he was besieged by several other people for a whole night. He withdrew the next afternoon (I still have his chat records with me, and I have some impressions of the situation before and after, but there is no need to go into details here). Another consequence of the White Paper Movement was the complete erasure of some of the activities within the organization that had been carried out in July, August, and even September, such as reading clubs, showing documentaries, etc. I still have the schedule of internal activities for the organization in October saved on my computer. As a result, due to the Sitong Bridge protest, it was completely stopped and has not been restored since then.

It was also around this time that my most important job was not anything else, but to talk to those who had left the Citizens Association one after another. Whoever left the Citizens Association today, I would pull him to my side tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. This was actually not difficult. They did not suddenly decide to stay away from politics after waking up in the morning. It was because they were tired of being crowded in the work group with a few talkative extreme rightists every day. Besides, there was nothing serious to do every day. At least they could quit to avoid seeing it. Therefore, starting from the June 4th commemoration in 2023 (this was not only the first time for the Citizens Association to hold a June 4th event, but also the first time I was responsible for the arrangement of an entire event), a considerable proportion of the staff were former members of the Citizens Association. I have been doing this all the time, including meeting some people through my own social networking. So when it came to the one-year anniversary commemoration of the White Paper in October and November, many people actually found that many of the work of the Citizens Association was done by former members of the Citizens Association, people who did not admit that they were members of the Citizens Association but had always cooperated with the Citizens Association, or people who simply had no relationship with the Citizens Association.

In fact, I succeeded Yang Ruohui as the head of the Citizens Association after August 2023, and even after that, I didn’t realize there was anything wrong with it. I thought that it was fine as long as the work was done. Whether it was street activities, writing postcards, or book clubs, people could tell that you were from the Citizens Association? Besides, it seemed more convenient to do anything with the sign of the Citizens Association, whether it was to promote an event or to hang out with people. The people around me may have known that I had this idea for a long time, but they never told me anything. Yes, I knew too well that the Citizens Association was an empty shell, but I always told myself that it was just a barber’s pole, so isn’t it enough as long as I had some enthusiasm? Do I have to do my seminar in the Citizens Association in a proper manner? Why should I create a group myself? Anyway, the people who come are the same, so what’s the difference?

Now think about it, although this model seems calm, in fact, everyone is uncomfortable. I play it this way and seem to be very smart, and I don't offend anyone. After all, many people in Toronto still recognize the three words "Citizens Association", and it's not that they can't work. But, in fact, this is irresponsible. Those who are willing to come to me after quitting the Citizens Association, those who don't like many aspects of the Citizens Association and don't want to get too close to the Citizens Association, but really want to participate in the movement, they didn't take it too seriously and didn't say anything, just because what we are doing now is small and not worth it. Indeed, things in 2023 are all small and small, an electric piano and a projector can travel the world, but now it's different.

From late May to now, a little over a month, rehearsals, a 40-minute speech at the June 4th reading group, exchanges with Professor Jeremy Brown and his affirmation of me, performances, the things mentioned above, and a personal incident that another friend and I experienced in recent days that will never be forgotten. All of these ultimately point to these questions that I have never dared to face: Who really cares about me, who do I really care about; who has been indulging me and taking responsibility for me, and who should I take responsibility for; who has always chosen to believe in me, willing to try and explore the unknown and possibilities with me, and who should I choose to believe in and be willing to face the snow-white and blood-red future together.

Therefore, I hereby announce that I will resign from all positions in the Civic Association and withdraw from the Civic Association, effective immediately.

Every time I went to find those who were driven away by the Citizens Association and tried to get them to join, I would tell them that they were on a pirate ship. Now, I have also boarded this ship that has been waiting for me for too long.

Nicholas (Sail into the Sunset's Fire)

Ride the wind and waves to sail to the big world Let the seabird lead our dreams The big ship is the house The world is our home One call and a hundred people will respond in formation

Ride the wind and waves to the big world Let the seabird lead our dreams and go back home to work together

One call and a hundred people respond in formation!
The Shining: Nicholas

This song, I sent to her with my friend. She made this event possible.

"I hope you can live freely forever, we will definitely meet again"

Luo Dayou's Shining Days

Opening words:

It is 8pm on June 4th. Thirty-five years ago today, it was a cool summer day in Beijing, with the temperature only at 28 degrees at noon and a little rain in the afternoon. The gentle breeze blew all day, but it could not stir up the blood in the air.

Summer is long, and the bustling streets are drowned out by the monotonous noise. The sound of gunshots, the roar of tanks, the sirens, the pain of the wounded, and the silence of the dead make this day unbearably long. Tiananmen Square is filled with idle soldiers. The glorious People's Liberation Army liberated the people with bullets and bayonets overnight. The vanguard of the working class defeated the working class. The party that serves the people has once again won the right to exploit the people under the Great Hall of the People and the Monument to the People's Heroes.

It is now 8pm on June 4th. Thirty-five years ago today, it was a bright red summer day in Beijing. Young friends, you will never meet again. The blood from your wounds, as red as fire, turns into colorful clouds, dyeing the sky.

They are not allowed to tell the story every year, so we tell it once a year, telling the boys and girls of today about the stories of our predecessors. No one can remember such a crowded summer.

It is 8:00 p.m. on June 4. Today is a summer day with rolling thunder. The air is trembling, as if the sky is burning. Yes, a storm is coming.

Ending words:

Thank you for taking the time to attend our event on a weekday evening. On behalf of all the organizers, staff and musicians, I would like to express our sincerest gratitude to you all. Thank you. May we never reconcile with life and become the antonym of the times.