Categories
ideological culture international affairs media and media people

Disney’s Mickey Mouse Boycott Policies

The state of Georgia and the country of China differ. The policies of one are much worse than those of the other.

Thus, the Walt Disney Company seriously mulled refusing to do business in Georgia but was eager to film in China, near internment camps used to imprison Uyghur Muslims.

Last year, Disney Executive Chairman Bob Iger threatened to suspend Disney’s film work in Georgia if the state’s new restriction on abortion went into effect. The law would have prohibited abortion when a heartbeat could be detected in the fetus. Before the law was struck down, Iger said that Disney would likely leave Georgia if it survived challenge, because “many people who work for us will not want to work there, and we will have to heed their wishes.…”

Journalists and others have been excluded from the Xinjiang region. But satellite images and the accounts of victims and witnesses provide evidence that perhaps two million Uyghurs and others have been imprisoned in the camps there, where many have died. Others have been forcibly sterilized.

In addition to getting permission to film in Xinjiang for its new movie “Mulan,” a few years back Disney got the go-​ahead to open a Disneyland in Shanghai.

In the film, Disney expressly thanks a propaganda arm of the CCP, the “publicity department of CPC Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomy Region Committee.” 

Disney’s conduct seems reprehensible. 

But let’s remember: the government of China is not exactly the government of Georgia.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


N.B. In previous episodes of Common Sense with Paul Jacob, the people here identified as “Uyghur” — following the spelling used by Disney — were spelled as “Uighur.”

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
international affairs media and media people

Defying China … for Now

According to a New York Times report, “American Internet giants are struggling to respond” to China’s recent crackdown on Hong Kong.

For now, the outcome of the struggle is that Facebook, Twitter, and Google have stopped sharing data with Hong Kong officials. Doing so has become tantamount to sharing data with the Chinese government.

If this wasn’t clear before China’s repressive new “national security” laws in Hong Kong, it’s clear now. The Chinese government is systematically working to muzzle and punish anyone who threatens “national security” by openly criticizing the Chinese government.

Yahoo has changed its policies as well, so that users are now governed in their dealings with Yahoo by American law, not local Hong Kong law (rapidly becoming synonymous with the mainland’s edicts).

So far, so good. 

Worrying, though, is how inconsistent the tech giants have been. Yahoo once helped the Chinese government to identify and imprison two dissidents, claiming it had “no choice” but to turn over the info. Google and others have worked with China to censor information that the Chinese government doesn’t want its citizens to see.

These companies should never — in no way, shape, or form — help China go after dissidents. 

They should never cooperate, rationalize, compromise. 

It would be better to pack up their services and leave Hong Kong altogether than to “struggle” to find a middle way that “sort of” cooperates with China’s repression — and “sort of” leaves Hong Kongers in the lurch.

To bolster these companies’ new backbones, we had best leverage our power as customers.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom international affairs

All Dogs Go to Heaven Early

In July, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un declared possessing pet dogs to be a “decadent trend” from the West.

Along with eating well and living without fear of one’s government.

Oh, not that last bit.

But, apparently — and there are many news stories, if not much exactitude or certainty — he did order all dogs confiscated. 

Why?

Well, reports vary. A search of DuckDuckGo will yield much speculation and a few sparse facts. 

A South Korean newspaper relayed a leak saying that Un called dog ownership “a ‘tainted’ trend by bourgeois ideology.”

How could dogs have been with us for tens of thousands of years, and may have been key to our species’ success, yet somehow now be “decadent” and “tainted” and “bourgeois”?

And, for that matter, a “trend.”

How many tens of thousands of years does it take to make a trend? On Twitter, it takes just a few minutes!

There is a lot of talk of a COVID-​19 famine (on top of the Kim Family Famine that has been trending for decades) and meat shortages. I’ve read reports that the dogs are to go to restaurants. And then there is the business about higher-​ups in the Hidden Kingdom’s un-​hidden but Un-​ridden hierarchy who have been taking advantage of a cultural loophole to display their status with expensive pet dogs from the West. 

Un prefers his displays of status, apparently, to be public executions and harsh and abrupt edicts … such as putting all dogs into execution chambers.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
international affairs

All Together Now

Chinese Communist Party-​controlled Hong Kong — under the National Security Law — has issued arrest warrants for six democracy activists.

I was not honored with inclusion.

“But Paul,” you sputter, “you do not live in China!”

Well, neither do those activists — all six now live outside the territory. 

Passed in secret in Beijing and imposed on Hong Kong, the new law basically criminalizes opposition to the CCP. 

ALL opposition. Anywhere. Anytime. Ex post facto

“The law criminalizes secession, subversion, terrorism and foreign interference,” CNN explains, “and it applies to offenses committed ‘outside the region’ by foreigners who are not residents of Hong Kong or China.”

One fugitive from injustice is Nathan Law, a former Hong Kong lawmaker and a leader of 2014’s Umbrella Movement. “I was prepared when I left Hong Kong to be in exile,” Mr. Law said on social media, explaining his departure when the draconian new law took effect, “but … who can enjoy freedom from fear in the face of China’s powerful political machine?”

Hong Kong officials maintain that there is “no retrospective effect” to the law, but that seems obviously untrue in Law’s case, and others’.* 

Samuel Chu with the Washington-​based Hong Kong Democracy Council, a U.S. citizen for two decades, also graces the list. “I might be the 1st non-​Chinese citizen to be targeted, but I will not be the last,” tweeted Chu. “If I am targeted, any American/​any citizen of any nation who speaks out for HK can-​and will be-too.”

Last year, when the protests first began, I wrote “I Am Hong Kong.” A year later? Even the CCP ominously agrees with Mr. Chu’s conclusion: “We are all Hong Kongers now.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* “Other activists targeted include Simon Cheng, a former employee of the British consulate in Hong Kong who was granted asylum in the United Kingdom after alleging that he was tortured in China and interrogated by secret police about the city’s pro-​democracy protests,” according to CNN, “and Hong Kong pro-​independence activists Ray Wong, Honcques Laus and Wayne Chan.”


Note: Before these indictments, Hong Kong authorities tossed a dozen pro-​democracy candidates off the ballot for September’s election. And then suspended the election for a year citing the pandemic — obviously wanting to avoid another massive election defeat for the CCP-​puppet government. 

PDF for printing

Photo by Warren R.M. Stuart

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom international affairs

iQuisling

Sometimes you should not try a balancing act.

Last weekend, Hong Kong citizens voted in opposition primaries — conducted in defiance of China’s new “national security” law that deprives Hong Kong of the last vestiges of democracy and individual freedom that the region had been allowed to retain after Great Britain handed it over to China in 1997. 

General elections will be held in September.

The primary organizers developed a voting platform called PopVote with apps for iOS and Android. 

Although China condemns the elections as illegal, Google has accepted the app for Android. But Apple first voiced technical objections to the code; then, after programmers made requested changes, the company stopped responding to them at all.

“We think it is being censored by Apple,” says Edwin Chu, one of the developers. 

It wouldn’t be the first time Apple has rejected apps in obedience to the Chinese government.

The Quartz website says that the firm “has long had to walk a tightrope between its commitment to user rights and placating China” because of the large market for (and production of) iStuff in that country.

Apple’s conduct may be unfavorably compared to that of companies like the one responsible for the secure messaging app Telegram. When China banned the app in 2015, founder Pavel Durov saw no point trying to get the ban reversed. He said: “It’s pretty obvious that the Chinese government’s desire for total control over its population is incompatible with our values.”

Not so incompatible with Apple’s values, apparently.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall international affairs term limits

He Tries Harder

He’s the Avis Rent A Car of authoritarianism. 

Russian President Vladimir V. Putin is not the most evil tyrant on the planet. That title clearly belongs to Chinese President Xi Jinping. Instead, Putin is No. 2. 

So, of course, he tries harder.

Two years ago, Xi Jinping got the Chinese Communist Party to jettison his term limits without breaking a sweat. Not the slightest pretense of democracy necessary. 

Two weeks ago, Putin finally caught up with Xi by winning an unnecessary and highly fraudulent national referendum designed to legitimize the constitutional jiggering that would allow him to stay in office until he would be 83 years old. 

Beating Joseph Stalin for post-​tsar star tsar.

So, how did Putin rig the referendum? 

“Voters are being asked to approve a package of 206 constitutional amendments with a single yes-​or-​no answer,” explained National Public Radio. Many U.S. states have single-​subject requirements for ballot measures to prevent precisely this sort of log-rolling.

Sergey Shpilkin, a well-​known Russian physicist, produced statistical evidence that “as many as 22 million votes — roughly 1 in 4 — may have been cast fraudulently,” ABC News reported.

“The European Union regrets that, in the run up to this vote, campaigning both for and against was not allowed,” read a statement from the 27-​nation block. With little debate and scant information, the referendum was just pretense.

So, why did Putin go through all the trouble to pretend?

Low approval ratings, a New York Times piece argued, his “lowest level since he first took power 20 years ago.” Putin needed all the help that fake democracy can provide.

Without any of those uncomfortable checks-​on-​power that real democracy demands.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts