請簽名支持天安門母親
http://www.gopetition.com/online/14294.html
我剛剛簽了名。原來自2007年開始發起簽名至今不足250人簽名，我以前在天安門母親運動的網站簽了名獻了花，
今日才到這個站補上簽名。我從頭到尾看了七位六四死難者家屬的證辭，熱淚盈眶，這部完整錄像紀錄片是2004年六四15周年前拍攝的，今年20周年，天安
門母親仍然受到監控和不容許公開致悼。兩會前夕，她們再發出淒切動人的公開信，不是挑戰政府和國家機器，只是合法合理合情地表達哀號和提出申訴，爭取正
義，討回公道，要求公開調查，追究屠殺責任而已！
二十年了，白髮蒼蒼的母親，已經痛不欲生了，還要繼續受到折磨迫害？
“天安門母親”呼籲“兩會”對“六四”進行調查
今年6月4日是1989年天安門民主運動遭當局軍事鎮壓20周年。在此紀念日到來之前，“天安門母親”群體–由在當年的政府鎮壓行動中喪失了親人的母親和親屬組成的團體，2月26日授權中國人權發表其致全國人大代表和政協委員的公開信。
公開信呼籲：
1.真相：重新調查“六四”事件，公佈死者人數、死者名單；
2.賠償：就每一位死者向其家屬作出個案交待，依法給予賠償；
3.問責: 對“六四”慘案立案偵查、追究責任者刑責。
公開信指政府當局在20年漫長歲月裏刻意掩蓋“六四”真相的做法，把中國變成了一間“密不通風的‘鐵屋子’”，“‘六四’受難親屬和傷殘者的一切哀號，一切哭訴、一切呻吟都擋在了‘鐵屋子’以外。”
今年的全國政協和人大會議將分別於3月3日和5日在北京開幕。該公開信是致參加“兩會“的代表和委員的。這是“天安門母親”群體自1995年以來第15次致函“兩會”代表。在歷年參加簽名上書的難屬中已有19人故世。
公開信全文
天安門母親
天安門母親運動
天安門母親公開信全文
請拿出勇氣，衝破禁區，直面“六四”
尊敬的十一屆二次會議全國人大代表和政協委員：
今年，是“六四”大屠殺20年。
上一個世紀的1989年6月4日，中國當局發動了一場對首都和平示威者及和平居民的大屠殺，嚴重違背了本國的憲法，違背了一個主權國家所應承擔的保護人類的國際義務，由對人權和公民權的一貫侮蔑發展為反人道的暴行。
在已經過去的漫長歲月裏，政府當局刻意淡化“六四”，不准國人談論“六四”，禁止媒體涉足“六四”。中國猶如一間密不通風的“鐵屋子”，把民間所
有關於“六四”的呼聲，把“六四”受難親屬和傷殘者的一切哀號，一切哭訴、一切呻吟都擋在了“鐵屋子”以外。今天，你們作為“兩會”代表、委員，莊嚴地坐
在大會堂裏，能聽到來自“六四”的呐喊嗎？能聽到“六四”難屬的痛苦歎息嗎？現如今，當年的血跡早已被沖刷，彈痕也早已被抹去，屠殺的現場擺滿了奇花異
草，變成了一片和平繁榮的景象。
可這一切能掩蓋得了當年的罪惡，能消除得了遇難親屬年甚一年的傷痛嗎？
不！絕對不可能。“六四”大屠殺早已被釘在歷史的恥辱柱上。它絕不是輕描淡寫的“政治風波”，也不是什麼“嚴重的政治風波”，而是一場不折不扣的反人道暴行。無論何種力量，都無法否定20年前被機槍、坦克奪去千百條鮮活生命這一嚴酷的事實！
二十年的時光不算短了，足夠一代人的成長。後起的一代，沒有經歷過當年的腥風血雨，沒有感受過屠城後淒厲靜寂的死地。過去了，似乎一切都過去
了，“請君莫唱前朝曲，聽唱新翻《楊柳枝》”。這二十年，國家領導人換了一代又一代，從第二代到了第三代、第四代。你們“兩會”代表、委員也換了一屆又一
屆。隨著時間的推移，情勢的變化，似乎給黨和國家的領導人提供了一種有利於弱化“六四”，把“六四”推向遙遠歷史年代的機會。
然而，中國的天安門母親不答應。我們認為，在“六四”定性問題上，來不得半點含糊，無論是堅持最初的說法，還是改變這種說法，都應該以事實為依
據，讓真相來說話。如果當年軍委主席鄧小平發動的“平息反革命暴亂”搞錯了，那就必須推翻，必須通過既定的法律程式予以糾正，向全社會公佈，不能用含糊其
辭的“政治風波”來搪塞。
天安門母親始終堅持一個信念，那就是：一切按事實說話、做事，不相信任何謊言。我們從最早的尋訪活動起，對所尋訪的人員都經過反復查證、核實，到
目前已知的194位死難者中，無一人有任何暴力行為。他們均屬於那場屠殺事件的無辜受害者。他們是為正義而死的，我們惟有為他（她）們討回公道，追尋遲到
的正義。否則，我們將無顏面對死者的亡靈。
從上個世紀的1995年起，我們這群“六四”慘案的受難者和受難親屬，每年鄭重地給“兩會”寫信，提出公正解決“六四”問題的三項要求。這就是：
重新調查“六四”事件，公佈死者人數、死者名單；就每一位死者向其家屬作出個案交待，依法給予賠償；對“六四”慘案立案偵查、追究責任者刑責。這三項概括
起來，就是 “真相、賠償、問責”六個字。
我們始終秉持和平、理性的原則，呼籲“兩會”和政府當局按照民主、法制的程式，以協商、對話的方式求得“六．四”問題的公正解決。然而，我們的此項要求始終沒有得到“兩會”的討論。
為了打破解決“六四”事件的僵局，使事態沿著平穩的道路發展，我們於2006年提出：可以按照先易後難的原則，對一些存在重大分歧，一時無法取得
共識的問題，可以暫時擱置爭議，首先解決一些涉及受害人基本權利和切身利益的問題。這些問題包括：1，撤銷對“六四”受難者和受難親屬的監控和人身限
制；2，允許死難親屬公開悼念自己的親人；3，不再阻截、扣沒海內外人道救助捐款，悉數發還已凍結的救助款項；4，政府有關部門本著人道精神幫助生活有困
難的受害人解決就業、低保等基本生活保障，此項幫助不應附加任何政治條件；5，消除對“六四”傷殘者的政治歧視，在公共參與、社會待遇上與普通殘疾人一視
同仁，等等。
2008年，我們又向“兩會”代表提出：今天，世界潮流是對話代替對抗。中國政府在國際事務上主張用對話的方式來解決分歧與爭端，那麼，我們也就
有更充分的理由，要求政府當局以同樣的方式來解決國內的分歧與爭端。如果能在“六四”問題上，爭取實現以對話來代替對抗，那將是整個民族的幸事、全體國人
的福祉。多一分對話，就多一分文明與法紀，也就少一分愚昧與專橫。對話不是把社會導向對立和仇恨，而是把社會導向寬容與和解。以對話方式解決“六四”問
題，將是達成社會和解的必由之路。
現在，又一年過去了，依然是杳無音信。
我們注意到國家主席胡錦濤先生不久前的一份公開講話中，曾經說過這樣一段話：“我們把人民擁護不擁護、贊成不贊成、高興不高興、答應不答應作為制
定各項方針政策的出發點和落腳點。”對此，我們表示歡迎。既然如此，我們建議人大、政協不妨在全國，尤其是北京，解除“六四”禁區，就“六四”事件開展一
次廣泛的民意調查，看看民眾究竟擁護什麼？贊成什麼？高興什麼？答應什麼？我們想，此事不難做到。
然而，中國民眾心裏都清楚，“六四”慘案是第二代領導人鄧小平一手製造的“鐵案”，在當前全國上下以及未來歷史上只要鄧小平的餘威尚在，想要搬倒
這個“黨和政府早已定性”的結論，拋棄新的“凡是”，那是一件極其艱難的事。即使“平息反革命暴亂”變成了“嚴重的政治風波”，其實質結論並沒有改變。
這就需要各位代表拿出非凡的膽略，拿出政治的勇氣和智慧，突破禁區，直面二十年前那場慘絕人寰的悲劇，按照事實真相解決“六四”事件。果真如此，那就必將造福於黎民百姓，功垂千秋。
簽名者：
丁子霖 張先玲 周淑莊 李雪文 徐 玨 尹 敏 杜東旭 宋秀玲 於 清 郭麗英 蔣培坤 王范地 段宏炳 袁可志 趙廷傑 吳定富 錢普泰
孫承康 尤維潔 黃金平 賀田鳳 孟淑英 袁淑敏 劉梅花 謝京花 馬雪琴 鄺瑞榮 張豔秋 張樹森 楊大榕 劉秀臣 沈桂芳 謝京榮 孫 甯 王文華
金貞玉 要福榮 孟淑珍 田淑玲 邵秋風 王桂榮 譚漢鳳 孫恒堯 陳 梅 周 燕 李桂英 徐寶豔 劉春林 狄孟奇 楊銀山 管衛東 高 婕 索秀女
劉淑琴 王培靖 王雙蘭 張振霞 祝枝弟 劉天媛 潘木治 黃定英 何瑞田 程淑珍 張耀祖 軋偉林 郝義傳 蕭昌宜 任金寶 田維炎 楊志玉 齊國香
李顯遠 張彩鳳 王玉芹 韓淑香 曹長先 方 政 齊志勇 馮友祥 何興才 劉仁安 李淑娟 熊 輝 韓國剛 石 峰 龐梅清 黃 甯 王伯冬 張志強
趙金鎖 孔維真 劉保東 陸玉寶 陸馬生 齊志英 方桂珍 肖書蘭 葛桂榮 鄭秀村 王惠蓉 邢承禮 桂德蘭 王運啟 黃雪芬 王 琳 劉 幹 朱鏡蓉
金亞喜 周國林 楊子明 王爭強 吳立虹 甯書平 郭達顯 曹雲蘭 隋立松 王廣明 馮淑蘭 穆懷蘭 付媛媛 孫淑芳 劉建蘭 王 連 李春山 蔣豔琴
何鳳亭 譚淑琴 （共127人）
2009年2月26日
根據難友們的提議，決定把歷年來簽名者中已故難友的名單附錄如下，以尊重死者遺願：吳學漢 蘇冰嫻 姚瑞生 楊世鈺 袁長錄 周淑珍 王國先 包玉田 林景培 寇玉生 孟金秀 張俊生 吳守琴 周治剛 孫秀芝 羅 讓 嚴光漢 李貞英 鄺滌清 （共19人）
=============
Open Letter by the Tiananmen Mothers
Please Show Courage, Break the Taboo, Face “June 4″ Head On
Open Letter by the Tiananmen Mothers
February 26, 2009
The Honorable Deputies of the Eleventh Session of the Second Plenary
of the National People’s Congress and Committee Members of the Chinese
People’s Political Consultative Conference:
This year marks the 20th Anniversary of the “June Fourth” Massacre.
In the last century, on June 4, 1989, the Chinese authorities
launched a massacre against peaceful demonstrators and civilians in the
capital, seriously violating our country’s constitution and breaching
their duty, as leaders of a sovereign state, to protect the people.
This was an unconscionable atrocity that grew from a longstanding
contempt for human rights and civil rights.
Over this long stretch of time, government authorities deliberately
played down “June Fourth,” forbade discussion among our people of “June
Fourth,” and prohibited the media from touching on “June Fourth.” China
has become like an airtight “iron chamber,” and all the demands of the
people about “June Fourth,” all the anguish, lament, and moaning of the
victims’ relatives and the wounded of “June Fourth,” have been sealed
off from this “iron chamber.” Today, as the deputies and committee
members of these “Two Meetings” are stately seated in this assembly
hall, can you hear the cry from “June Fourth”? Can you hear the painful
sighs of the families of the victims of “June Fourth”? But now, the
bloodstains of that time have long been washed away and the bullet
marks rubbed out, and the site of the massacre is now decorated with
exotic plants and flowers and has become a scene of peace and
prosperity.
But can all this conceal the sins of that time? Can it erase the
sorrow of the relatives of the victims that deepens year after year?
No! It absolutely cannot. The “June Fourth” massacre has long
secured its place in history’s hall of shame. It absolutely cannot be
diminished as a “political disturbance” or even a “serious political
disturbance.” It was nothing short of an unconscionable atrocity. No
amount of force can negate the bitter reality of the hundreds and
thousands of lives snatched away by guns and tanks twenty years ago.
Twenty years are not a short time; they are enough for a whole new
generation to emerge. This new generation never experienced the
bloodshed of that time, nor has it ever felt the desolate calm that
settled on a killing field. It has passed; it seems that everything has
passed. “Play not the songs of former dynasties; listen instead to the
new tune of the ‘Willow Branch.’”* In these 20 years, generations of
our country’s leaders have succeeded the one before, from the second
generation to the third, and then the fourth. You deputies and
committee members of the “Two Meetings” have also changed from session
to session. The passage of time and the shift of circumstances seem to
have given the party and country leaders a kind of opportunity to
minimize “June Fourth” and push it to a distant corner of history.
Even so, China’s Tiananmen Mothers cannot consent. On the question
of defining “June Fourth” we feel that we cannot afford to be the least
bit vague. Whether to adhere to the initial interpretation or to change
it, we must base it on facts and let the truth do the talking. If Deng
Xiaoping, then Chairman of the Central Military Commission of the
Communist Party of China, was wrong in “suppressing the
counterrevolutionary rebellion,” then we must overturn it and correct
it through established legal procedures and publicly announce it to the
whole society, and should not explain it away with the vague term of
“political disturbances.”
The Tiananmen Mothers have always held one belief, and that is: act
and speak according to the facts; accept no lies. From the start of our
inquiry activities, we would repeatedly check and verify our data
regarding the person of interest. As of now, not a single one of the
194 dead that we have examined had any history of violence. They are
all among the innocent victims of that massacre. They gave their lives
for the sake of justice and all we can do is return justice to them, to
pursue the justice that comes late to them. Otherwise, we would not be
able to face the spirit of the dead.
Since 1995, our group of “June Fourth” victims and loved ones return
here every year to write to the “Two Meetings” with three requests for
officially acknowledging “June Fourth.” They are: start new
investigations on the “June Fourth” incident, publicly announce death
tolls, release a list of the names of the dead; clarify each case to
the family members of the dead and compensate them according to law;
investigate “June Fourth” cases to determine those responsible and
punish them. To summarize, our three requests are: “Truth,
Compensation, Responsibility.”
We have always upheld the principles of peace and reason. We appeal
to the two committees and government authorities to utilize the methods
of democracy and open dialogue to come to a just resolution. Yet our
requests have not been discussed in the “Two Meetings.”
In 2006, we suggested the following in order to end the stalemate
over “June Fourth” and ensure that the situation can develop along a
steady path: use the principle of tackling the simpler problems first.
The divisive issues that cannot be resolved or agreed upon easily can
be set aside temporarily. Instead, first solve the issues that involve
the basic rights of the victims and their personal interests. These
issues include: 1) remove all monitoring of and restrictions on the
movements of “June Fourth” victims and their families; 2) allow
families of the dead to openly mourn their loved ones; 3) stop
intercepting and confiscating both domestic and international
humanitarian aid contributions, and return all the aid money that was
previously frozen; 4) relevant government departments should, in
humanitarian spirit, help the victims who are facing hard times to find
employment and guarantee them a basic livelihood, without any political
conditions; 5) remove political biases against the disabled victims of
“June Fourth” such that they are treated as all other disabled persons
in regards to communal participation and treatment by society, etc.
In 2008, we again proposed to the deputies of the “Two Meetings”: in
the world today, dialogue has replaced confrontation. The Chinese
government advocates using dialogue to resolve differences and
conflicts on international issues. Thus we have an even stronger basis
to ask that the government authorities resolve the internal differences
and conflicts in the same way. If we are able to use dialogue to
replace confrontation on the problem of “June Fourth,” it would benefit
the whole country and be a blessing for all our people. The more
dialogue we have, the more civility and law and order, and the less
ignorance and tyranny. Dialogue does not lead society towards
opposition and hatred, but rather, towards tolerance and
reconciliation. Using dialogue to solve the problem of “June Fourth” is
an imperative path toward societal reconciliation.
Another year has passed now, yet we have heard nothing.
We note that President Hu Jintao said the following in public not
long ago: In determining every single policy, we start and end with
whether the people endorse it or not, agree with it or not, are happy
with it or not, and consent to it or not. We welcome these words. If
this is so, then we suggest to the National People’s Congress and
CPPCC: why not eliminate the taboo of “June Fourth” and conduct a broad
survey of the people’s attitudes towards “June Fourth” countrywide,
especially in Beijing, to find out what exactly the people endorse?
What they agree with? What they are happy with? Consent to? We believe
this should not be difficult to do.
But the people of China know very well that the tragic case of “June
Fourth” is an “ironclad case” created single-handedly by the second
generation leader, Deng Xiaoping. As long as Deng Xiaoping enjoys any
lingering prestige in our country from top to bottom and in future
history, it would be an extremely formidable task to overturn the
conclusion that has “already been decided on by the Party and
government,” and to discard the new “Whatever” policy.** Even if
“suppressing the counterrevolutionary rebellion” is relabeled as a
“serious political disturbance,” the judgment, in essence, still has
not changed.
This then will require each deputy to demonstrate extraordinary
courage and resourcefulness, political courage and wisdom, to break the
taboo and face head-on the unspeakable tragedy that took place 20 years
ago and resolve “June Fourth” with the truth. If this should happen,
you will have brought a great blessing upon our people and your
achievement will go down in history.
* A quote from the first song in a collection of nine titled “Willow Branch” by Tang poet, Liu Yuxi.
** A reference to the “Two Whatevers” policy articulated by Hua
Guofeng, who succeeded Mao Zedong as the chairman of the Communist
Party of China upon Mao’s death: “We will resolutely uphold whatever
policy decisions Chairman Mao made, and unswervingly follow whatever
instructions Chairman Mao gave.”
Signers:
丁子霖 Ding Zilin 张先玲 Zhang Xianling 周淑庄 Zhou Shuzhuang
李雪文 Li Xuewen 徐 珏 Xu Jue 尹 敏 Yin Min 杜东旭 Du Dongxu
宋秀玲 Song Xiuling 于 清 Yu Qing 郭丽英 Guo Liying 蒋培坤 Jiang Peikun
王范地 Wang Fandi 段宏炳 Duan Hongbing 袁可志 Yuan Kezhi
赵廷杰 Zhao Tingjie 吴定富 Wu Dingfu 钱普泰 Qian Putai
孙承康 Sun Chengkang 尤维洁 You Weijie 黄金平 Huang Jinping
贺田凤 He Tianfeng 孟淑英 Meng Shuying 袁淑敏 Yuan Shumin
刘梅花 Liu Meihua 谢京花 Xie Jinghua 马雪琴 Ma Xueqin
邝瑞荣 Kuang Ruirong 张艳秋 Zhang Yanqiu 张树森 Zhang Shulin
杨大榕 Yang Darong 刘秀臣 Liu Xiuchen 沈桂芳 Shen Guifang
谢京荣 Xie Jingrong 孙 宁 Sun Ning 王文华 Wang Wenhua
金贞玉 Jin Zhenyu 要福荣 Yao Furong 孟淑珍 Meng Shuzhen
田淑玲 Tian Shuling 邵秋风 Shao Qiufeng 王桂荣 Wang Guirong
谭汉凤 Tan Hanfeng 孙恒尧 Sun Hengyao 陈 梅 Chen Mei 周 燕 Zhou Yan
李桂英 Li Guiying 徐宝艳 Xu Baoyan 刘春林 Liu Chunlin 狄孟奇 Di Mengqi
杨银山 Yang Yinshan 管卫东 Guan Weidong 高 婕 Gao Jie 索秀女 Suo Xiunv
刘淑琴 Liu Shuqin 王培靖 Wang Peijing 王双兰 Wang Shuanglan
张振霞 Zhang Zhenxia 祝枝弟 Zhu Zhidi 刘天媛 Liu Tianyuan
潘木治 Pan Muzhi 黄定英 Huang Dingying 何瑞田 He Ruitian
程淑珍 Cheng Shuzhen 张耀祖 Zhang Yaosu 轧伟林 Ya Weilin
郝义传 Hao Yichuan 萧昌宜 Xiao Changyi 任金宝 Ren Jinbao
田维炎 Tian Weiyan 杨志玉 Yang Zhiyu 齐国香 Qi Guoxiang
李显远 Li Xianyuan 张彩凤 Zhang Caifeng 王玉芹 Wang Yuqin
韩淑香 Han Shuxiang 曹长先 Cao Changxian 方 政 Fang Zheng
齐志勇 Qi Zhiyong 冯友祥 Feng Youxiang 何兴才 He Xingcai
刘仁安 Liu Renan 李淑娟 Li Shujuan 熊 辉 Xiong Hui 韩国刚 Han Guogang
石 峰 Shi Feng 庞梅清 Pang Meiqing 黄 宁 Huang Ning
王伯冬 Wang Bodong 张志强 Zhang Zhiqiang 赵金锁 Zhao Jinsuo
孔维真 Kong Weizhen 刘保东 Liu Baodong 陆玉宝 Lu Yubao
陆马生 Lu Masheng 齐志英 Qi Zhiying 方桂珍 Fang Guizhen
肖书兰 Xiao Shulan 葛桂荣 Ge Guirong 郑秀村 Zheng Qiuchun
王惠蓉 Wang Huirong 邢承礼 Xing Chengli 桂德兰 Gui Delan
王运启 Wang Yunqi 黄雪芬 Huang Xuefen 王 琳 Wang Lin
刘 乾 Liu Qian 朱镜蓉 Zhu Jingrong 金亚喜 Jin Yaxi 周国林 Zhou Guolin
杨子明 Yang Ziming 王争强 Wang Zhengqiang 吴立虹 Wu Lihong
宁书平 Ning Shuping 郭达显 Guo Daxian 曹云兰 Cao Yunlan
隋立松 Shui Lisong 王广明 Wang Guangming 冯淑兰 Feng Shulan
穆怀兰 Mu Huailan 付媛媛 Fu Yuanyuan 孙淑芳 Sun Shufang
刘建兰 Liu Jianlan 王 连 Wang Lian 李春山 Li Chunshan
蒋艳琴 Jiang Yanqin 何凤亭 He Fengting 谭淑琴 Tan Shuqin
(127 names)
In accordance with suggestions by our friends, we’re also including
the following names of our fellow signers from previous years who have
passed away as to respect their wishes.
吴学汉 Wu Xuehan 苏冰娴 Su Bingxian 姚瑞生 Yao Ruisheng
杨世鈺 Yang Shiyu 袁长录 Yuan Changlu 周淑珍 Zhou Shuzhen
王国先 Wang Guoxian 包玉田 Bao Yutian 林景培 Lin Jingpei
寇玉生 Kou Yusheng 孟金秀 Meng Jinxiu 张俊生 Zhang Junsheng
吴守琴 Wu Shouqin 周治刚 Zhou Zhigang 孙秀芝 Sun Xiuzhi
罗 让 Luo Rang 严光汉 Yan Guanghan 李贞英 Li Zhenying
邝涤清 Kuang Diqing (19 names)
(Translation by Human Rights in China)
