Disney Dwarfed by Goofy Transgender Push
The company synonymous with children has decided to pick a fight with a state protecting them.
Disney has created some iconic villains over the years, but they’ve crossed the line with their latest: Texas. In news no one can believe, the company synonymous with children has decided to pick a fight with a state protecting them. The announcement, which came Monday, is just the latest stop on CEO Bob Chapek’s apology tour after he failed to defend transgenderism in Florida soon enough for the radical mob’s liking. Now, after two weeks of penance that’s included everything from multi-million dollar LGBT donations to the formation of a gay and transgender task force, Disney is the closest its ever been to a final break with American parents — and reality.
The Bob Chapek who said corporate statements on politics are “counterproductive” is a changed man from early March. Now, after being brought to heel by the radical fringe that holds Disney hostage, the company’s woke agenda is overshadowing everything else. “We know the moment requires urgency, and words are not enough,” Chapek told Disney employees at a virtual townhall. But this latest step, vowing “action” against Texas Republicans who want to stop children from mutilating their bodies or taking life-altering drugs, is such a political escalation that even conservatives didn’t see coming.
“When I read the article,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said, he wondered what possible “action” Chapek could possibly mean. “What is Disney going to do in Texas?” he asked on “Washington Watch.” “We’re following our state law. Unless they want to come in and un-elect our legislature… As powerful as they may be, I don’t think they have the ability to change state law in Texas — not that I know of.” He, like most people, is stunned the company is even trying. “It’s shocking to me. We’re talking about children [pressing pause] on an irrevocable decision” that could haunt them the rest of their life.
Meanwhile, inside Disney, there’s a growing outrage over the company’s far-Left agenda. In a kingdom of 203,000 employees, the 100 who staged a walkout over transgenderism may have grabbed national headlines, but they’re a fraction of the men and women who are quietly seething over the combative activism that’s violating their values. In an open letter, members of the Disney team blast Chapek for making it “an increasingly uncomfortable place to work” for anyone whose “political and religious beliefs are not explicitly progressive.”
“Over the last few weeks, we have watched as our leadership has expressed their condemnation for laws and policies we support. We have watched as our colleagues, convinced that no one in the company could possibly disagree with them, grow increasingly aggressive in their demands. They insist that [Disney] take a strong stance on — not only this issue — but other legislation and openly advocate for the punishment of employees who disagree with them.”
“Employees who want [Disney] to make Left-wing political statements are encouraged, while those of us who want the company to remain neutral can say so only in a whisper out of fear of professional retaliation. The company we love seems to think we don’t exist or don’t belong here… Furthermore, as this politicization makes its way into our content and public messaging, our more conservative customers will feel similarly unwanted. You can only preach at or vilify your audience for so long before they decide to spend their money elsewhere.”
In some corners, that movement has already begun. Ben Shapiro, furious at the company for catering to its wokest base, declared, “It’s time for the market pushback to begin.” “If you want entertainment that is going to cater to your children, we’re going to start making kids content over here at Daily Wire specifically so that you don’t have to [support] companies that hate your guts and cater to people who despise your values.”
There was also backlash from a handful of brave Disney stars. Natasha Ward, star of the Disney-owned “Station 19” posted that “Supporting trans freedom does not mean it’s okay to violate the rights of biological women.” When “other people’s truth infringes on fact and places an undue burden, which displaces my rights, we have gone too far,” she argued.
Other conservatives are taking a page from the Left — infiltrating shareholder meetings and confronting Chapek personally. Justin Danhof, director of the Free Enterprise Project, bought a single share of stock at several Fortune 500 companies just for the right to attend meetings and challenge the political status quo. That came in especially handy this week, as Disney hosted investors during one of the most contentious weeks in recent memory. “To attend a shareholder meeting of a publicly-traded company, you need to own a whopping one share of that company,” Danhof explained. “So if you’re upset at Coca-Cola for an action they’ve taken, I think it’s like $58 these days buys you admission to the shareholder meeting.”
Most of Disney’s legitimate investors — the ones who are in it to make money — aren’t in lockstep with the company’s politics, Danhof said. “But the vast majority of activist investors who show up, they’re pushing their affinity issues from the LGBTQ community, and they’re doing it in very large numbers. But I’m encouraged,” he insisted. “There are more voices on the Right than there ever have been.” He compares it to the parents’ movement in education. “They’re taking over school boards. They’re recalling terrible members because they want to protect their children… But just know that you can do the same thing in the corporate arena as well — because corporate America wants to control what your children see [too]. And believe me, they want to corrupt your family and your culture. So, you can fight in the schools — but you can also fight at the corporate level.”
And judging by their actions, Disney would be the perfect place to start.
Originally published here.
Congress Has a Serious Human Rights Problem on Its Hands
Last week, a little-known provision of human rights law was tampered with as it made its way through the House of Representatives. Family Research Council called attention to the problems with this altered text, but because it was attached to the bill to cut off Russian oil, not as many took notice. This language must not be allowed to pass the Senate.
This bad language in the Suspending Energy Imports from Russia Act, H.R. 6968, would modify the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act enacted in 2016. The Global Magnitsky Act enables the U.S. government to place financial sanctions on foreign individuals responsible for “extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” This is an important law, and it is one of the most effective means by which the U.S. government can pressure officials in other countries to stop violating human rights.
Of course, we want the U.S. government to utilize Global Magnitsky to bring foreign individuals who violate religious freedom or other human rights to justice. However, the new language in H.R. 6968 lowers the bar from sanctioning people for “gross violations of internationally recognized human rights” (a term defined in U.S. law) to simply “serious human rights abuse” (a legally undefined concept). Without a clear definition, “serious human rights abuse” could be construed broadly, to mean a lot of different things. This could pave the way for U.S. officials to misuse Global Magnitsky sanctions to target foreign individuals based on political considerations and policy agendas (pro-life leaders as “human rights violators,” for instance).
Some are now mistakenly arguing that without this new language, as contained in President Trump’s related executive order, the U.S. government would not have been able to sanction a number of recent human rights violators. Thus, they want to codify this language. Yet the reality is that these individuals could still have been sanctioned under the current Magnitsky “gross violation” standard, which would capture violators exercising “command and control” authority to stop human rights abuses.
Some claim this language is needed to sanction Turkish officials over American pastor Andrew Brunson’s wrongful imprisonment, but they are mistaken. In U.S. law, “gross violations of internationally recognized human rights” is defined to include “torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, and other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of person” (emphasis mine). This last provision allows for sanctions against the officials persecuting Brunson. In addition, the statute also specifically refers to violations of the exercise of freedom of religion.
Brunson was simply pastoring a small evangelical church in Turkey when the Turkish government absurdly accused him of participating in a coup and detained him. His arbitrary detention qualifies as a “gross violation,” and the sanctioned officials exercised at least “command control” over the situation. Turkish officials should have — and could have — been sanctioned even without President Trump’s executive order and the “serious human rights abuse” language in it.
While “serious human rights abuse” is mentioned elsewhere in federal law, those instances are clearly outlined and linked to specific instances of human rights abuse in a given context. The changes currently being considered for Global Magnitsky would result in global carte blanche for those who want to use a manipulated definition of “human rights” to do their bidding.
There is also a big difference between this language being utilized in an executive order and enshrined into law. If Congress gives up on this language, and gives over complete discretion for interpreting what constitutes a “serious human rights violation” to the executive branch, it’s easy to see how the Global Magnitsky Act sanctions — which are currently a powerful tool for good — can be used in a harmful way, and would be subject to the vagarities of shifting political winds from administration to administration. The Biden administration is already slipping abortion policy into its human rights reporting, falsely implying that human rights include a “right” to abortion.
The U.S. government should stand up for human rights around the world — but we must be vigilant to keep U.S. human rights advocacy on the straight and narrow. We should retain the current statutory language of the Global Magnitsky Act, and not open up the door to the vague, broader terminology of “serious human rights abuse” — which is a serious watering down of the definition itself.
Instead of making this drastic and damaging change, the Senate should opt instead for a straight reauthorization of the Global Magnitsky Act using the current language which had bipartisan support in 2016.
Either way, the Senate must deal with this problematic “serious human rights abuse” standard once and for all.
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
