Artists Cancel Concerts after HB2 laws are passed. What are your thoughts?

[ryzno]

As the title says: Boston, Pearl Jam, Bruce Springsteen and Ringo Star have cancelled shows in North Carolina over HB2(Carolina's bill was about having to use the restroom that corisponds to your birth certificate). Bryan Adams has cancelled a show in Mississippi over HB2(Mississippi it's legal for a church to refuse burial over sexual orientaion). On top of other not so popular artists.
Georgia's Governor Nathan Deal, vetoed bill HB2 after seeing the backlash that has happened in other surrounding states.

I'm not for the bill, nor against it. But I find some artists to be hypocritical. Lets take Guns & Roses for example, they also have cancelled concerts in NC. But they have played in countries that look at homosexuality in a completely different manner.

For example they played in India, Under Indian law: Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dating back to 1861 makes homosexual sex punishable by law and carries a life sentence.

They have also played in Indonesia,

Currently, unlike neighboring Malaysia, Indonesian law do not specificly having sodomy law. The national criminal code does not prohibit private, non-commercial homosexual relations between consenting adults. A national bill to criminalise homosexuality, along with cohabitation, adultery and the practice of witchcraft, failed to be enacted in 2003 and no subsequent bill has been reintroduced.[6]

Indonesia allows its provincial governments to establish certain Islamic-based laws, such as criminal sanctions for homosexuality. These local penalties exist in Aceh and South Sumatra provinces, where bylaws against LGBT rights have been passed.[7] The bylaws criminalize consensual same-sex sexual acts as well as all zina (sexual relations outside of marriage). These sharia-based criminal codes permit as punishment up to 100 lashes and up to 100 months in prison for consensual same-sex sex acts, while zina violations carry a penalty of 100 lashes.[7]


In Jakarta, LGBT people are legally labelled as "cacat" or mentally handicapped and are therefore not protected under the law.[8] While Indonesia has allowed private and consensual sexual relations between persons of the same sex since 1993, it has a higher age of consent for same-sex relations than for heterosexual relations (17 for heterosexuals and 18 for homosexuals).[9]

The Constitution does not explicitly address sexual orientation or gender identity. It does guarantee all citizens various legal rights, including equality before the law, equal opportunity, humane treatment in the workplace, religious freedom, freedom of opinion, peaceful assembly, and association. Such legal rights are all expressly limited by the laws designed to protect public order and religious morality.[10]

Thats just 2 examples from one group. So that brings up the question. Is it hypocrisy or the PC crowd pushing their agenda or the South not keeping up with the times or the government getting into topics they have nothing to do with?

Feel free to discuss.

 

[Johnnypenso]

As the title says: Boston, Pearl Jam, Bruce Springsteen and Ringo Star have cancelled shows in North Carolina over HB2(Carolina's bill was about having to use the restroom that corisponds to your birth certificate). Bryan Adams has cancelled a show in Mississippi over HB2(Mississippi it's legal for a church to refuse burial over sexual orientaion). On top of other not so popular artists.
Georgia's Governor Nathan Deal, vetoed bill HB2 after seeing the backlash that has happened in other surrounding states.

I'm not for the bill, nor against it. But I find some artists to be hypocritical. Lets take Guns & Roses for example, they also have cancelled concerts in NC. But they have played in countries that look at homosexuality in a completely different manner.

For example they played in India, Under Indian law: Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dating back to 1861 makes homosexual sex punishable by law and carries a life sentence.

They have also played in Indonesia,

Thats just 2 examples from one group. So that brings up the question. Is it hypocrisy or the PC crowd pushing their agenda or the South not keeping up with the times or the government getting into topics they have nothing to do with?

Feel free to discuss.

It is hypocrisy with a capital H IMO. You believe something or you don't. Not performing in one American state or the other and then going off to accept money from people who would imprison or publicly flog someone for the same behaviour that is perfectly legal in that same state is the very definition of hypocrisy. It's a matter of artists jumping on the right bandwagons so they can be seen as supporting a cause and gaining all the street cred for doing so, rather making the really hard decisions that go along with actually supporting a cause.

 

[A2K78]

Most of these celebrities that claim to be for human rights and all of this nonsense in reality don't really believe in what they claim. If anything its just putting up appearance because it brings them attention.

 

[Northstar]

I never get things like this as it really only punishes the fans that already made plans. I highly doubt any politician in NC cares whether or not Bruce Springsteen or Pearl Jam play a concert there.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Is it hypocrisy or the PC crowd pushing their agenda or the South not keeping up with the times

I think that it's a bit more complex than that. It takes time for a society to come to tealise change, and it's not something that can be inflicted upon them. So in the case of Indonesia, you have to let them come to the realisation on their own. You can educate them, encourage them, and even influence them, but if the change is going to be meaningful and lasting, then it has to come from within. But in the case of the southern states, the HB2 laws come across as regressive - society as a whole has come to recognise transgender issues, but these laws represent an about-face.

 

[LeMansAid]

It is hypocrisy with a capital H IMO. You believe something or you don't. Not performing in one American state or the other and then going off to accept money from people who would imprison or publicly flog someone for the same behaviour that is perfectly legal in that same state is the very definition of hypocrisy.

There are various ways to view it. A statement via absence in one place could potentially enhance a statement via presence in another. It may be that certain places need encouragement to move forward, while others need a warning not to move backward. Isolating places with largely archaic attitudes will only serve to preserve the status quo of marginalisation and subjugation of those with progressive mind sets within that place.

It doesn't mean that these artists are not being hypocritical, just that there's an available rationale that would mean they're not, or not intentionally.

But I find some artists to be hypocritical. Lets take Guns & Roses for example, they also have cancelled concerts in NC. But they have played in countries that look at homosexuality in a completely different manner.

Hmm, makes me wonder if they'll bin the song or change the words to One In A Million, for their live performances.

 

[Johnnypenso]

There are various ways to view it. A statement via absence in one place could potentially enhance a statement via presence in another. It may be that certain places need encouragement to move forward, while others need a warning not to move backward. Isolating places with largely archaic attitudes will only serve to preserve the status quo of marginalisation and subjugation of those with progressive mind sets within that place.

How did you reach this conclusion? You don't think if American artists en masse simply refused to perform in the Middle East or countries with the most archaic laws regarding the LGBT community, for example, that might not set a great example for the world and for those particular countries that they believe so strongly in this principle they will forgo their personal fortune to advocate for it? Maybe even start a revolution from the masses wanting to see their favourite pop stars? How about just standing up for what you believe in and not supporting an oppressive regime?

I don't see how anyone can see this as anything but disingenuous, to issue a statement like this and cancel a tour date in NC, and then go off to perform in a Middle Eastern country where it's a crime to be LGBT in many cases:

Cirque du Soleil believes in equality for all. It is a principle that guides us with both our employees and our customers. We behave as change agents to reach our ultimate goal of making a better world with our actions and our productions

It doesn't mean that these artists are not being hypocritical, just that there's an available rationale that would mean they're not, or not intentionally.

I think it does and blatantly so.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Look at the earliest mainstream attempts at recognising the homosexual community in the United States - the campaigns led by Harvey Milk against Proposition 6 (I think it was 6; the one that sought to ban homosexuals or anyone who supported them from teaching in California schools). That was happening in the 1970s, and even today there is still extensive debate about gay rights. In forty years, we have had significant progress, but there's still some way to go.

On the other hand, we have got nations with extremely oppressive laws against homosexuality; arguably, they are further behind the point where the United States was in the 1970s. And now you're expecting that they can somehow get to the same point that the United States is practically overnight when it took the United States the better part of half a century to get there.

 

[Liquid]

They, the artists, are private citizens free to perform or not perform wherever they so choose. There's no issue strictly with the principle of them not performing in North Carolina. I'd be cross if I had already booked tickets though.

You can argue the hypocrisy about still performing elsewhere and I would be on board with that. Don't play in Carolina if you don't want to but don't champion that it's all about human rights when you're happy to collect money from elsewhere with far worse abuses.

Perhaps these artists, many of them from the United States, feel that they can make more of a difference 'at home' rather than cancelling an Indian tour, which wouldn't really have a great effect in the long run. But in your home country? People will take notice.

 

[Touring Mars]

Most of these celebrities that claim to be for human rights and all of this nonsense in reality don't really believe in what they claim. If anything its just putting up appearance because it brings them attention.

Are you saying G N' R Lies?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Are you saying G N' R Lies?

Well, at least they're doing something for once.

 

[Tornado]

I'm assuming that GNR figured there were even odds that they were going to cancel that concert anyway (be it because Axl got really drunk and passed out right before going on, or Axl got in a fistfight with someone on stage, or Axl forgot the lyrics to the songs, or the band already broke up by that point), so they thought they'd get in on the progressive movement in place.

 

[Touring Mars]

Also, it's rather amusing that Axl Rose is to replace Brian Johnson for the remainder of AC/DC's current tour, which includes a gig in North Carolina...

 

[Dotini]

Thanks to the internet and other download technologies, the days when musicians and performance artists could make a living from record/tape/CD sales are long done. These aging rockstars from bygone decades doing tours for live concerts is a pitiful substitute. Now even that is cheapened by layering on social agendas.

 

[Pupik]

Thanks to the internet and other download technologies, the days when musicians and performance artists could make a living from record/tape/CD sales are long done. These aging rockstars from bygone decades doing tours for live concerts is a pitiful substitute.

If seeing a concert in person is a "pitiful substitute", I'm just going to assume you do not enjoy music at all. That's a statement akin to saying "why bother with driving a real car, there's driving simulations now."

Nearly all musicians, knob twiddlers, singers, performers, and recording artists make far more money (by percentages) in live performances than record deals, and it's been that way for decades.

I'm kind of muted on my feeling for these cancellations; on one hand, it makes a statement, but I don't see the correlation. Eagerly paying fans and a law which has nothing to do with restrictions on the performance seem to be mutually-exclusive issues. Perhaps there's the amount which each location levies which goes into local government coffers, but I'd imagine that's a small percentage of the costs of putting on a performance.

Stupid boogeyman law...Let people go in whatever unlocked restroom they want. I wouldn't consider it to be a double standard for artists to challenge the laws of their own nation, especially if one is permitted to raise their voice with physical impunity.

 

[A2K78]

Are you saying G N' R Lies?

I'm not just talking about them but the whole bunch of celebrites out there who declare their support for human rights, equality an this other crap may they be actors, singers or even politicians... In fact this call to mind individuals like Katy Perry, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Madonna right down to the social justice warriors George Clooney and Matt Damons who like to boast about their support for human rights,equality and the rest of this egalitarian nonsense...a quick look at some of thier activities clearly show that they don't practice what they claim preach when they're taking money from repressive regimes or performing in countries the HRW deem as major violators.

Overall the claim that these celebrities are for gay rights is really is another way for them to further inflate thier already inflated egos.

 

[squadops]

The artists can do or not do whatever they like, it's a failed political statement that no one cares about. They are not able to perform the type of extortion for instance that Jackson or Sharpton can pull off against private business.

 

[LeMansAid]

How did you reach this conclusion? You don't think if American artists en masse simply refused to perform in the Middle East or countries with the most archaic laws regarding the LGBT community, for example, that might not set a great example for the world and for those particular countries that they believe so strongly in this principle they will forgo their personal fortune to advocate for it? Maybe even start a revolution from the masses wanting to see their favourite pop stars? How about just standing up for what you believe in and not supporting an oppressive regime?

I have no idea what's actually in these artists' heads, and no idea of net results (would be, or will be) - they may not be genuine at all in their criteria for making these decisions. What I do know is that this is more complex than say a preacher preaching against homosexuality while having an ongoing homosexual relationship - because intentions and focus matter here. "The greater good" is a valid consideration in this scenario. Feasibly it could be "We aren't playing ______ because we want a show of solidarity against HB2", and "We are playing ________ because we want a show of solidarity for the people that would be against things like HB2".

If I was to kill cats in Australia, motivated by the amount of native animals they kill, but meanwhile kill other animals in a different country, motivated by protecting the native cats from those animals.... would I be a hypocrite? In one place I'm saving cats, in the other I'm killing them - but if my actual motivation is the greater good........

You're not inside their minds. Given that, just like with the 60 Minutes situation showcased in the Immigration thread, it's fair to be suspicious (veeeery suspicious) - but not to pass judgement.

 

[TheCracker]

I'm not just talking about them but the whole bunch of celebrites out there who declare their support for human rights, equality an this other crap may they be actors, singers or even politicians... In fact this call to mind individuals like Katy Perry, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Madonna right down to the social justice warriors George Clooney and Matt Damons who like to boast about their support for human rights,equality and the rest of this egalitarian nonsense...a quick look at some of thier activities clearly show that they don't practice what they claim preach when they're taking money from repressive regimes or performing in countries the HRW deem as major violators.

Overall the claim that these celebrities are for gay rights is really is another way for them to further inflate thier already inflated egos.

You really do have an appetite for destruction, don't you?

 

[Pupik]

You really do have an appetite for destruction, don't you?

Not since the Spaghetti Incident: Angel Hair and Rotini aren't allowed to use the same pot, regardless of which semolina pasta they identify with.

 

[Tornado]

Either way, we're likely to see Chinese democracy before he gets it.

 

[huskeR32]

social justice warriors... who like to boast about their support for human rights,equality and the rest of this egalitarian nonsense

Yeah, those are some truly awful goals.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yeah, those are some truly awful goals.

Could you be any more selective in your quoting?

....a quick look at some of thier activities clearly show that they don't practice what they claim preach when they're taking money from repressive regimes or performing in countries the HRW deem as major violators.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm not just talking about them but the whole bunch of celebrites out there who declare their support for human rights, equality an this other crap may they be actors, singers or even politicians... In fact this call to mind individuals like Katy Perry, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Madonna right down to the social justice warriors George Clooney and Matt Damons who like to boast about their support for human rights,equality and the rest of this egalitarian nonsense...a quick look at some of thier activities clearly show that they don't practice what they claim preach when they're taking money from repressive regimes or performing in countries the HRW deem as major violators.

Overall the claim that these celebrities are for gay rights is really is another way for them to further inflate thier already inflated egos.

Yeah, those are some truly awful goals.

 

[squadops]

Yeah, those are some truly awful goals.

I'd like to see where their money goes, I'd like to know if they fly around in private jets telling their puff'd up story. Hypocrisy runs deep with these Hollywood types. I actually do not care what they do it's just very amusing to me that the system that gave them such a great lifestyle is the one thing they choose to attack. You don't think they've road on anyone's backs?

They never put their money where their mouth is so to speak, well unless they all start to follow Ed Begley Jr. And no, Angelina Jokie adopting some Chinese babies is not going to cut it.

 

[Joey D]

The artist have every right to pull their shows for whatever reason they see fit, whereas fan have every right to be angry and upset over the cancellation of the shows. These artists are exchanging entertainment for money, they have every right not to offer their services in a location where they don't agree with X. In the end, the fans will ultimately decided whether or not this is a good because they will either support the artist or decide to stop buying any of the entertainment they put out.

Personally I don't really care what celebrities do, they don't influence my beliefs but I do respect their right to bitch and moan how they see fit.

 

[huskeR32]

Could you be any more selective in your quoting?

I'm sure I could, seeing that I wasn't being selective at all. The only thing I removed from his quote were the specific names, in order to clarify the sentiment that I was responding to. My quote didn't at all change what @A2K78 said.

At the end of the day, when it comes to the bit that you emphasized:

...a quick look at some of thier activities clearly show that they don't practice what they claim preach when they're taking money from repressive regimes or performing in countries the HRW deem as major violators.

None of this (mostly imagined) hypocrisy is relevant to the bit where he called egalitarianism "nonsense."

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm sure I could, seeing that I wasn't being selective at all. The only thing I removed from his quote were the specific names, in order to clarify the sentiment that I was responding to. My quote didn't at all change what @A2K78 said.

At the end of the day, when it comes to the bit that you emphasized:

None of this (mostly imagined) hypocrisy is relevant to the bit where he called egalitarianism "nonsense."

What you removed from the quote was most of the quote. He's clearly making a point about the hypocrisy of Hollywood social justice warriors claiming an issue is really important and jumping behind it, and then turning around and taking money to perform in countries where being LGBT is illegal and results in prison time.

 

[squadops]

None of this (mostly imagined) hypocrisy is relevant to the bit where he called egalitarianism "nonsense."

He didn't say that, he said some guys egalitarian nonsense, and he's right as some of these guys really are just blowing hot air up anyones ass who's willing to listen.

 

[TheCracker]

I can't say i'm bothered whether a celeb supports a certain cause even if their own lifestyle makes that an act of hypocrisy. It's all about raising awareness on a subject that the majority of the population probably doesn't know about, at the end of the day.