The Shotgun Blog
Monday, November 28, 2005
Paul McCartney vs. China
Paul McCartney has announced that he will never perform in China, for political reasons.
"This is barbaric. Horrific. It's like something out of the dark ages. And they seem to get a kick out of it. They're just sick, sick people.
"I wouldn't even dream of going over there to play, in the same way that I wouldn't go to a country that supported apartheid.
"This is just disgusting. It's just against every rule of humanity. I couldn't go there. If they want to consider themselves a civilised nation they're going to have to stop this."
Oh -- you thought McCartney cared about their treatment of people? Try again.
Posted by Ezra Levant on November 28, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Paul McCartney vs. China:
Another example of environmentalists who believe animals should have more rights than humans.
Has any celebrity ever brought up the fact of jailed Chinese dissidents while touring there?
But, it someone shows up in a fur coat or eats dogs instead of chickens it's a huge celebrity moral issue!
If any of you know a vegatarian/vegan, here's a funny question to ask them:
Do you think's it's moral for an animal to kill and eat another animal? Unless they're absolutely insane, they'll say yes. Then you ask: So, you think animals should have greater rights than humans?
Posted by: charlotte | 2005-11-28 8:31:56 AM
The only thing worse is if they supported...CAT JUGGLING ! Oh the horrors !
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-11-28 8:40:39 AM
This from a man who was singing the virtues of Communist Russia under the fun Brezhnev years.
"I'm back in the USSR
Hey, You don't know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the USSR
Oh, let me tell you honey"
Human rights were never a concern for him.
Posted by: Maple stump | 2005-11-28 8:50:59 AM
Well excuuuuuse meeee! I don't like cat juggling and I don't like cruelty to animals. I no leftie, believe me when I tell ya, but I happen to love and respect animals and all that they have done for mankind. We owe them at least, decent treatment.
Humans have big brains and can fend for themselves if they have the balls to stand up to their oppressors. Animals do not.
As we judge out civilization on how we treat the weaker of our society, we should also be judged by how we treat our less intelligent mammals.
Don't be so arrogant as humans, to think animals don't matter .. they have feelings and they can experience love, sadness, pain and all the basic feelings we have. It appears they don't share our negative traits such as envy, gluttony, hate and sloth. That might make them better than us in a manner of speaking.
I am not a vegan and I like a good steak once in awhile, but I prefer to know that my steak donor was teated decently, why wouldn't you?
I have noted that those who treat animals badly or have not regard for their well-being aren't very much themselves. Usually they have emotional or mental problems. But that's only what I have observed. What do I know.
Have a laught at
Posted by: Duke | 2005-11-28 9:19:44 AM
I completely agree that animals should be treated with respect, in fact I live on farm which raises beef cows in a manner which respects their need for room to roam.
Regardless of how China is treating its dogs and cats, I think the point can still be made that McCartney has never shown any regard for maltreated human beings, or used such strong language in regards to humans before.
"Humans have big brains and can fend for themselves if they have the balls to stand up to their oppresors"
These are exactly the people I was referring to in China, Duke. Political dissidents who stood up to their oppressor and were jailed for it. So, because they're big-brained humans, they don't need the rest of the world to speak out against these atrocities? They should just use their brains, get some balls and figure out how to escape from jail, and organize a movement large enough to fight the Chinese government?
Now, wouldn't it be terribly ironic if the Chinese government responded to McCartney's demands and created a situation where dogs and cats rights were recognized, but humans' rights weren't?
btw - was your post entirely or partially sarcastic?
Posted by: Charlotte | 2005-11-28 9:43:24 AM
As I clicked on "Comments" I wondered whether (and very much hoped that) someone might bring up "Back in the USSR" as evidence of the Fab Four's latent communism, which along with Reagan vis-à-vis Springsteen is one of the great dunderheaded misreadings (or in this case over-reading) of a demon rock and roll song ever. And there it was. So thank you for making my morning, Maple stump, whether it was intentional or not.
Posted by: Chris Selley | 2005-11-28 9:51:32 AM
Why would anyone take their business to a nation that enslaves millions in work camps specifically for western businessmen to make a profit? To make a profit? Is that enough of a reason to undermine all ethics?
Not to me.
Posted by: wharold | 2005-11-28 11:10:29 AM
Well said Duke!! People who treat annimals without respect treat humans without respect. Paul is an entertainer and I think his opinion about Communism is irrelevant, however, if the "Back in the USSR was NOT a sarcastic commentary on the sorry state of affairs in that country, then it blew past me for many years.
Posted by: jema54j | 2005-11-28 11:36:06 AM
It's well known that many serial killers start out abusing animals. It just speaks to a lack of compassion and empathy for other living beings.
I'm no lefty, no PETA nutcase but all creatures ought to be treated humanely. (And this from a guy who's university job was killing hampsters then doing necropsies on them to "farm" parasites! Let me tell you how unpleasant that was. But even a rodent should meet their end without suffering.)
Posted by: Warwick | 2005-11-28 12:21:16 PM
I love animals too...especially with salt and a nice sauce...
The main point being too many people ignore the human abuse and worry about seals, etc. Humans come first, animals are for our benefit, whether as pets or dinner, or a nice warm coat.
Guess I won't make P.E.T.A.'s Christmas party this year!
I agree about the mistreatment of animals leading to human abuses...but there's a big difference in using and abusing.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-11-28 12:43:19 PM
Thanks MarkAlta, someone who got my point.
Human interests should take precedence over those of animals any day.
The animals rights movement has moved so far into the mainstream that threatening animals, such as polar bears, are not shot - they are put in "bear jails" and often termed repeat offenders when they return to the community over and over again to threaten humans.
Animals deserve respect, but many animal rights activist ignore glaring abuses of human rights, while continually speaking of edangered species.
Posted by: charlotte | 2005-11-28 1:04:56 PM
Sorry if I gave the impression that I have no common sense. I am a ranchers daughter, we produced beef for food BUT our cattle lived a decent life and they were cared for as property and as God's creatures with real needs re: pain and suffering. Treating animals with respect is part of owning animals it speaks to the humans we do not know too. Few of us know the Chineese people or the Iranian people or any others in the cess pool dictatorships of the world; yet, if we have ANY imigination or common decency - we care and we care more - much more- about the people than we do about the animals. Anyone who has had a pet and shared their life with that animal has a natural aversion for seeing cruelity to creatures - it is ALWAYS un necessary to be cruel - to animals or to people.
Posted by: jema54j | 2005-11-28 1:23:58 PM
Except in self defense.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2005-11-28 1:45:48 PM
yeh, Vitruvius, then you do whatever is necessary!
Posted by: jema54j | 2005-11-28 2:09:17 PM
Consider that when you look at the people who are so oppressed that they cannot do anything .. I will suggest that you are talking about a society that went beyond a gun registry and simply disarmed their poplulations.
What do all slaves have in common?
Tney don't own guns.
One more point. You can rail about how much more valuable and important humans are than animals. My experience is that .. this is true in many cases, but this world is rife with human garbage ... at all levels. From Prime Ministers to druggies on the street.
I have less compassion for humanity than many because I don't believe we are sacred beings, but rather just another carbon unit on a blue ball in space, but with great priviledge that we regularly abuse, ignore and waste.
When you can choose, you have no excuses. Animals don't have this opportunity.
Keep it all in perspective and don't let your ego run away with you.
If you actually believe you will die and go to your eternal paradise .... then I respect that, but I ask you this ... how much golf can you play .. really ... do you know how long forever is?
Now ... laugh with me at my blog. Click the "Duke" and come over ...
Cheers y'all and vote conservative.
Posted by: Duke | 2005-11-28 5:47:03 PM
According to this morning's paper a woman was mauled to death by six dogs while gardening in her back yard.
It she knew about gun control, and had a clip of eight, she would have had two left over.
But as Duke says, don't let your ego run away with you (even as you tend to its health). Hubris is perhaps the greatest threat to accomplished success.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2005-11-28 6:02:19 PM
I'm with Duke and jema on this one. The horrendous treatment of dogs and cats is symptomatic of China's tyrannical attitude towards and treatment of its citizens.
And as much of a mutton-headed lefty McCartney may be he's right to be disgusted by this.
Posted by: JR | 2005-11-28 7:58:34 PM
"In 2002 McCartney was presented with a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Amnesty International Media Spotlight Awards. The Award was given to the former Beatle for his consistent and passionate dedication to raising awareness on behalf of a number of critical social issues, including his work for Human Rights, landmine bans, animal rights and breast cancer research. The Media Spotlight Awards, presented by Amnesty USA, was established to honour, acknowledge, and encourage the contribution of courageous and principled journalists, filmmakers, writers, musicians, and actors who educate the public about Human Rights through their work."
In 2002 McCartney was presented with a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Amnesty International Media Spotlight Awards. The Award was given to the former Beatle for his consistent and passionate dedication to raising awareness on behalf of a number of critical social issues, including his work for Human Rights, landmine bans, animal rights and breast cancer research. The Media Spotlight Awards, presented by Amnesty USA, was established to honour, acknowledge, and encourage the contribution of courageous and principled journalists, filmmakers, writers, musicians, and actors who educate the public about Human Rights through their work."
How many readers here have done nearly as much for human rights as Paul McCartney, or as his wife Heather Mills with her Adopt-a-Minefield foundation?
Posted by: mijnheer | 2005-12-02 9:34:11 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.