Paul McCartney boycotts China over fur(Comments RSS)
Paul McCartney has publicly declared that he would not consider performing in China because of a video he saw which exposed brutal treatment of cats and dogs for their fur.
The story on the BBC's website reported the response by the Chinese:-
Here is the link to the BBC story on Paul McCartney's outrage. You can even feast your eyes on a video clip of these horrors by clicking on a link on the news page.
This is surely sickening and dreadful news to hear about the cruel treatment of defenceless and harmless animals. But is it really that much of a surprise?
I've heard it said that one measure of a nation's level of civilisation is to be found in its treatment of animals. By that measure I think it's fair to say that the UK does not come up smelling of roses, and I am not proud of that. But does this revelation really make us look askance at China?
Let me see. I'm not an expert on this but I do not think one needs to be an expert to know that China has a lamentable human rights record. The government is guilty of religious and political censorship and suppression. Labour and Employment law is scant and often ignored to the detriment of workers. There is ample anecdotal evidence that the implementation of the country's "family planning" rules has resulted in the abuse of the unborn and the newly-born. There's more. You can find some of it at the Human Rights Watch web site.
So, top marks to Paul McCartney for criticising China for its inexcusable treatment of dogs and cats.
However, can it really be true that religious and political suppression, victimisation of common labourers and crimes agains the unborn child, to mention a few misdemeanours, did not deter Sir Paul from contemplating a gig in China, but a video of cruelty to animals and alsation fur coats tipped the scale for him? Either that or the man is showing his ignorance.
And perhaps more disconcertingly, can it be true that we as a nation care more about some dogs and cats than about the other glaring human rights travesties? Why are there, for instance, no covert videos on the BBC web site of Chinese officials taking newborn infants from their mothers and drowning them in the gutter?
The story on the BBC's website reported the response by the Chinese:-
A Chinese official said boycotts were not justified, and blamed US and European consumers for buying the fur.
Here is the link to the BBC story on Paul McCartney's outrage. You can even feast your eyes on a video clip of these horrors by clicking on a link on the news page.
This is surely sickening and dreadful news to hear about the cruel treatment of defenceless and harmless animals. But is it really that much of a surprise?
I've heard it said that one measure of a nation's level of civilisation is to be found in its treatment of animals. By that measure I think it's fair to say that the UK does not come up smelling of roses, and I am not proud of that. But does this revelation really make us look askance at China?
Let me see. I'm not an expert on this but I do not think one needs to be an expert to know that China has a lamentable human rights record. The government is guilty of religious and political censorship and suppression. Labour and Employment law is scant and often ignored to the detriment of workers. There is ample anecdotal evidence that the implementation of the country's "family planning" rules has resulted in the abuse of the unborn and the newly-born. There's more. You can find some of it at the Human Rights Watch web site.
So, top marks to Paul McCartney for criticising China for its inexcusable treatment of dogs and cats.
However, can it really be true that religious and political suppression, victimisation of common labourers and crimes agains the unborn child, to mention a few misdemeanours, did not deter Sir Paul from contemplating a gig in China, but a video of cruelty to animals and alsation fur coats tipped the scale for him? Either that or the man is showing his ignorance.
And perhaps more disconcertingly, can it be true that we as a nation care more about some dogs and cats than about the other glaring human rights travesties? Why are there, for instance, no covert videos on the BBC web site of Chinese officials taking newborn infants from their mothers and drowning them in the gutter?
13/12/2011 7:22 AM
On 16 November 2011 St. Petersburg Legislative Assembly passed in its first reading a law prohibiting propaganda of homosexuality, lesbianism, transsexuality and pedophilia and introducing fines for such actions. The law is expected to come into force in December 2011. Discussion of St. Petersburg law provoked intensive debates in the Russian media and society. According to its authors it will be used to ban any public events of sexual minorities in the city.Speaker of Moscow City Duma Vladimir Platonov said in the interview that the law banning propaganda of homosexuality to minors will definitely be passed in Moscow. The next day he was supported by other local parliamentarians who said they are working on such a law to be introduced in Moscow City Duma.
On 17 November Speaker of Russian Upper Chamber of Parliament Valentina Matvienko supported introduction of a similar law on federal level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3TOsbnSpyE
As seen in this video, the police cracked down very hard on dissent. Whether it is the representatives of the LGBT community or the opposition.
December 4, 2011 in Russia held elections to the Parliament. At stake were the 450 seats in the State Duma, the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russia (the legislature). United Russia won the elections with a 49.54% share of votes (238 seats), down from 64.30% in the 2007 elections. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation received 19.16% (92 seats), while the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia got 11.66% (56 seats) and A Just Russia 13.22% (64 seats). Other parties did not cross the 7% election threshold.
According to the web sites, Mr. Putin's party (or, as they call it Russians "party of crooks and thieves'), scored from 6 to 15% of the vote. Everything else - the results of fraud and massive violations of the election.
Saturday’s demonstrations in Moscow were the biggest since the fall of the Soviet Union.
The protesters are demanding a re-run of the election that returned the ruling United Russia party to power. In other cities too there were smaller demonstrations.
“MPs, we didn’t choose you” read one large banner on a bridge over the Moscow River.
The Moscow demonstration dispelled people’s worst fears and became the Russian opposition’s most successful action in years. Now it’s up to the government to choose a response to the demands of tens of thousands of citizens.
VasiliyPetrovsky