Year: 2020

Washington D.C., Sep 11, 2020 / 11:01 am (CNA).-  

At least two U.S. Senators have joined the chorus of outrage against The Walt Disney Company after the company revealed it worked with Chinese propaganda departments in the Xinjiang autonomous region during the filming of Mulan.

“The ancient Chinese folktale of Hua Mulan is inspiring,” said Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) in a Sept. 9 letter sent to Bob Chapek, the CEO of The Walt Disney Company. “Disney’s partnership with a genocidal dictatorship is appalling.”

In the closing credits for Mulan, a live-action remake of the 1998 animated film of the same name, Disney gave a “special thanks” to, among other entities, the “Publicity Department of CPC Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Committee,” and the “Turpan Municipal Bureau of Public Security.” Parts of the movie were filmed in Xinjiang, which is located in northwestern China. The majority of the Uyghur population, a minority ethnic group that is mostly Muslim, resides in Xinjiang.

“The Publicity Department of the CPC Municipal Committee has pushed propaganda justifying the nature and purpose of the ‘re-education facilities,’” wrote Sasse, who noted that the Turpan Bureau of Public Safety is part of a larger entity that was recently sanctioned by the Department of the Treasury for its role in the operation of the detention camps in the region. The camps detain mostly Uyghur prisoners, who can be sent there for offenses such as “celebrating an Islamic holiday” and “wearing traditional religious clothing.”

The Chinese government claims the camps are for terrorism prevention purposes. Women who have been imprisoned in the camps have told stories of forced abortions and sterilizations.
Sasse stated that there needs to be a “deeper understanding of (Disney’s) production process” due to the company’s “willingness to partner with those committing genocide.” He requested additional information regarding when Disney was working in Xinjiang, as well as information regarding the agreements Disney made with the Chinese government when filming, and if the company raised concerns about human rights abuses in the region.

“Can Disney verify that the filming of Mulan did not benefit from Xinjiang-based forced labor,” asked Sasse, along with a request for information regarding any editorial requests made by the Chinese government.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who was sanctioned by China earlier this year, wrote a similarly worded letter to Chapek on Wednesday, noting that China’s human rights abuses in Xinjiang were well-documented by the time Disney began production on Mulan in August 2018.

“Disney’s whitewashing of the ongoing Uighur genocide is contrary to all of your company’s supposed principles,” wrote Hawley.

“Just a few weeks ago, for instance, you wrote about the need to ‘confront the inscrutable idea that the lives of some are deemed less valuable—and less worthy of dignity, care and protection—than the lives of others,’” said Hawley. “Elsewhere, Disney has declared its commitment ‘to providing comfort, inspiration, and opportunity to children and families around the world’ and described its ‘commitment to respect human rights’ as a ‘core value.’”

Filming in Xinjiang and working with those committing human rights abuses is a violation of these values, said Hawley.

“How does glorifying the Chinese authorities perpetrating abuses in Xinjiang provide comfort, inspiration, and opportunity to Uighur children—including those who were never born because the CCP forced their mothers to abort them,” asked Hawley. “Disney’s actions here cross the line from complacency into complicity.”

Hawley requested that Disney donate the profits from Mulan to non-governmental organizations that are fighting human trafficking and “other atrocities underway in Xinjiang.”

The Walt Disney Company’s decision to work in Xinjiang and cooperate with Chinese Communist Party entities is interesting given that the company has been outspoken on what it perceives as human rights abuses in the United States.

In May 2018, Disney’s then-CEO Bob Iger said that it would be “difficult” for Disney to continue making movies in Georgia if the state moved to ban abortion after the detection of a heartbeat.
“Many people who work for us will not want to work there” should the law go into effect,” Iger told Reuters at the time. “We will have to heed their wishes.”
The law has repeatedly been blocked and cannot be enforced by the state of Georgia.

Jewher Ilham, a Uyghur Human Rights Fellow at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation whose father was abducted by the Chinese government, told CNA that she believes Disney needs to become more aware of what is happening around the world.

“Disney needs to better educate themselves about the human rights abuses committed around the globe, especially in China,” she said. “Egregious human rights violations take place there every day at the hands of the Chinese Communist government. It’s amazing to me to see how the same company has such firm stances stateside but is willing to give in to China in order to make a profit.”

“If Disney’s stance on abortion was enough to make them boycott filming in Georgia, then they should have boycotted filming in the Uighur region where some of the world’s worst human rights abuses are taking place,” she added.

Denise Harle, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, told CNA that Disney choosing to film in Xinjiang was “hypocrisy,” and that she believes “consumers should take notice.”

“Disney threatened to halt all plans to film in the state of Georgia over its pro-life laws but does not hesitate to film in China, where egregious human rights abuses are consistently committed, including forced sterilizations and abortions,” said Harle.

“Mulan was filmed in Xinjiang, China, the very region where more than one million Muslims are being held in detention camps because of their beliefs. While some companies put profits over people, Americans should remember that all human life, born and unborn, is worthy of protection,” she said.

The film has also been criticized because its lead actress, Liu Yifei, has expressed support for police in Hong Kong cracking down on protests of the Hong Kong extradition bill last year.

The Chinese government admitted in October 2018 that “re-education camps” for members of the Uyghur population had been established. The camps were first spotted on satellite imagery in 2017.

The highest estimate sets the total number of inmates in the camps at 3 million, plus approximately half a million minor children in special boarding schools for “re-education” purposes.

[…]

Washington D.C., Sep 11, 2020 / 07:00 am (CNA).-  

Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who was previously attorney general of California, has a record of legislative and judicial advocacy for laws protecting abortion or targeting pro-life pregnancy centers, many of which are operated by Catholics.

Her political offices have had close, sometimes collaborative, ties with abortion lobbying groups.

The Reproductive FACT Act

California’s Reproductive FACT Act, passed in 2015, required medically licensed pro-life pregnancy centers to post signs advertising the availability of free or low-cost abortion procedures in the state. The law was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2018.

Denise Harle, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, told CNA that the requirement for pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise abortions “was fundamentally at odds with their mission.”

Harle said that the law also required pregnancy care centers that offer other forms of pro-life help but not medical services “to put large, conspicuous disclosures in all of their advertising materials that implicated that the pregnancy centers weren’t qualified to do what they wanted to do.”

The law, Harle said, “was very clear that it was targeting pro-life viewpoints.”

“In fact it was written right into the legislation that California was concerned with what it perceived as the problem of their being many, many pro-life pregnancy centers in the state, and the state acknowledges that was at odds with California’s—what they called their proud legacy of reproductive freedom,” Harle said. “It was an undisguised attempt at targeting pro-life viewpoints for punishment.”

Harle, who was involved in the NIFLA vs. Becerra Supreme Court case in which the high court overturned the law for violating the First Amendment, said the Reproductive FACT Act was blatantly unconstitutional.

“There aren’t examples where the government forced Alcoholics Anonymous to hang posters that advertise where to get alcohol, and that’s because it’s not constitutional, that’s because the first amendment doesn’t allow this sort of compelled speech and that’s why we don’t see it in other contexts,” she said.

As attorney general, Harris was a vocal advocate for the law. In a 2015 statement, she called herself a co-sponsor of the legislation, and praised then-Gov. Jerry Brown for signing it into law.

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates filed a lawsuit challenging the Reproductive Fact Act, which lead to the Supreme Court striking down the law in NIFLA v. Becerra in 2018.

NIFLA’s president Tom Glessner told CNA last week that “the name of the case was initially NIFLA vs. Kamala Harris, because she was the attorney general at that time.”

Harris was elected to the United States Senate in 2016, and was replaced as attorney general by Xavier Becerra, who continued the state’s defense of the law.

Glessner said Harris lobbied for and supported the legislation, working “hand in glove” with NARAL to get it passed.

“Her fingerprints were on it from the very beginning,” he said, adding that Harris’ description of herself as a co-sponsor of the law “shows her enthusiasm for it, tells us of her activism in getting it passed.”

Anne O’Connor, NIFLA’s Vice President of Legal Affairs and co-counsel in arguing the case before the Supreme Court, told CNA that “NARAL lobbies against pregnancy centers in states and counties and municipalities to get laws passed that would silence pregnancy centers.”

“That’s exactly what NARAL did in California and with Harris’ support, they had this law passed against us in 2015 that was just on its face clearly unconstitutional, but it took a few years to go up through the Supreme Court, where Harris and her office aggressively defended the law till we finally had the Supreme Court give us justice,” O’Connor said.

“It’s frustrating when someone has an abortion rights agenda that just blinds them to our other rights like free expression.”

O’Connor said Harris’ defense of the law cost the state of California over a million dollars in legal fees upon losing the case.

“She’ll do anything for abortion and against pregnancy centers no matter what the cost,” O’Connor told CNA.

Glessner called the Reproductive FACT Act “a clear violation of the first amendment right to free speech,” and argued “the first amendment gives you the right to speak, but it also protects you from the government compelling you to speak.”

He likened the Reproductive FACT Act to forcing the American Cancer Society to promote cigarettes.

“It’s an outrageous mandate for people to violate their consciences,” Glessner said. 

O’Connor said Harris’ record as attorney general and “her positions throughout her career have been very clear that she is for abortion no matter what and she’s opposed to people who are against abortion.”

She added that she is concerned about efforts at a federal level to pass comparable legislation targeting pregnancy centers.

“I would fear that there would be federal legislation like what we fight in the states that targets pregnancy centers, which really shocks us because pregnancy centers do such great work,” O’Connor said. “They’re there on the front lines serving women day in and day out, providing them the support they need to make an educated choice.”

Glessner echoed O’Connor’s concerns, pointing to the impact of the election on the federal judiciary.

“Instead of us winning NIFLA vs. Beccera 5-4, we would be losing those cases,” he said.

The Biden campaign did not respond to a request for comment on Harris’ advocacy for the Reproductive FACT Act.

Amicus Briefs and Legislative Agenda

Life Legal Defense Foundation, a law firm representing the Center for Medical Progress, published an email exchange between Harris’ Special Counsel for Legislation Robert Sumner and Planned Parenthood’s California lobbying arm, in which Sumner offered to be “helpful where I can” on the organization’s legislative priorities.

As attorney general of California, Harris frequently joined friend-of-the-court briefs at a federal level in support of pro-abortion laws.

One such brief was in the case that became Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case regarding a Texas law requiring abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and for doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of facility.

Harris argued the law “undermines both public health and a woman’s right to choose.” The law was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016.

Relationship with Pro-Abortion Lobbying Groups

According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, Harris’ 2016 Senate campaign—which took place while she served as attorney general of California—received $38,830 in campaign contributions from pro-abortion lobbying groups. Her 2014 re-election bid for attorney general was supported by five California Planned Parenthood PACs.

Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which has endorsed Biden for president, praised his selection of Harris. In an Aug. 11  statement, Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said throughout Harris’ career, “she has been a steadfast champion for reproductive rights and health care.”

“With this selection, Joe Biden has made it clear that he is deeply committed to not only protecting reproductive rights, but also advancing and expanding them,” McGill Johnson said.

[…]