National Review
American Companies Remain Silent About Chinese Court’s Anti-LGBT Decision
More than a dozen companies contacted by National Review remained silent when asked to comment on a recent decision by a Chinese court that upheld a ruling that a textbook description of homosexuality as “a psychological disorder” was not a factual error, but an “academic view”. The Suqian Intermediate People’s Court in eastern Jiangsu province issued the decision in response to an appeal by Ou Jiayong, 24, also known as Xixi, who first discovered the psychology book that described being gay as a mental disorder during his studies at South China Agricultural University in 2016, according to the South China Morning Post. The 2013 edition of Mental Health Education for University Students listed homosexuality as “common psychosexual disorders” and said that “it was believed to be an interruption of love and sex or perversion of the sexual partner”. In 2017, Xixi sued the book’s publisher, which is used by several Chinese universities, and the online retailer that stores it, JD.com. She asked the editor to remove the reference and publicly apologize. She argued that the book was “low quality work” as there was no scientific evidence to support the statement. When National Review reached thirteen American companies and five multinationals that manufacture in China and at the same time sell LGTBQ products from pride, only one company – Sweden-based clothing retailer H&M – responded. H&M, which lists China and Bangladesh as its largest clothing production markets, said the company “will continue to uphold our values and commitments” when asked to comment on the decision and whether it will continue to manufacture in China in the future. “The H&M Group works with suppliers and business partners to ensure that human rights are respected in the supply chain, based on our business relationships, leverage and operational context,” a H&M spokesman said in a statement to National Review. “We always strive to act ethically, transparently and responsibly and we expect our business partners to do the same,” adds the statement. “All of our business partners must sign and fulfill our sustainability commitment, regardless of where they are.” Meanwhile, Nike, Disney, Starbucks, Dr. Martens, Pumps, MeUndies, Adidas, Reebok, Warby Parker, American Eagle, PopSockets, Pottery Barn, Teva, UGG, Puma, Target and Levi’s did not respond to the National Review request for comment about the decision. All brands engage in pro-LGBT marketing efforts, especially around the “pride” month. Dan Harris, a Seattle lawyer specializing in business-related matters in China, said it was no surprise that American companies did not express concern about the decision, which he says was probably transmitted directly by the Chinese Communist Party. “In China, the courts are not independent. They are a reflection of the Communist Party, which basically controls everything, ”he said. While China decriminalized homosexuality in 1997 and removed it from the official list of mental disorders in 2001, Harris says the Communist Party “has had a negative view of homosexuality for a long time, so this court decision is really no surprise. ”. Harris added that, in light of American companies’ lack of concern over alleged human rights violations in China, he does not see the new decision as “having much impact”. “Many American companies do not seem terribly concerned by the claims and realities of a genocide that is taking place in Xinjiang, where there are at least a million Uighurs essentially placed in concentration camps, forced labor, etc.,” he said. “Some American companies have definitely been harmed due to their association with bad elements in China, but it has not yet risen to the level where the typical American company will be so concerned about how its reputation will be affected by doing business with China,” he added. Although Harris predicts that this could change as the coronavirus pandemic subsides and the Beijing Winter Olympics launch a new spotlight in China.