Category: Hong Kong

Nothing there about freedom per se, though the second fundamental principal of Olympism does hint at it (see page 12 of the pdf link):

Therefore (in theory at least), the goal of Olympism IS freedom — for without it, men have the dignity of serfs or slaves.  Which is why the pro-slavery views of Jackie Chan make him unsuitable for the job of spokesman for Taiwan's Deaflympics:

Tuesday's China Post attempted to defend Chan's job as Taiwan's Deaflympics spokesman, on the basis of . . . free speech.

Which is a straw man, because Chan's free speech isn't the issue.  As a free man, it's Jackie Chan's right to express his odious wish that he and all other Chinese should be servile.  For speaking his mind, I do not advocate that he be jailed, fined, or hauled in front of a human rights tribunal by any government.  Nor do I hear anyone demanding that the State retaliate against his economic interests, banning his movies or otherwise damaging his livelihood.

The Post asks:

Indeed they are — but that doesn't mean that democracy champions are obligated to accept anti-democrats as their SPOKESMEN!

It's a similar issue to the whole Durban II "Anti-racism" Conference.  The UN holds an international meeting on anti-racism . . . then invites MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD as a keynote speaker?

Whatsa matter?  David Duke and "high-class" Chinese nationalist Kuo Kuan-ying weren't available?

Here's a clue for UN Secretary Dim-Bulb Ban Ki-moon:  If you want your little anti-racism shindig to have any credibility, it's MAYBE not a good idea to give the limelight to hallucinatory psychotics who're jonesing for genocide.

And here's another clue for Ban's counterparts at the China Post:  If Taiwan wants a spokesman for freedom and human dignity, it's contradictory to hire Jackie Chan.  He's already got a job, moonlighting as a spokesman for governmental repression.

UPDATE:  One other thing.  Companies and organizations hire spokesmen in order to create GOODWILL for their products or events.  If a celebrity (for whatever reason) isn't creating that goodwill, then shouldn't someone ELSE be given their job instead?

Apropos of this, CNN has a long list of commercial pitchmen who were fired for offenses ranging from raunchy speech (Madonna) to partisan speech (Whoopi Goldberg) to bitter divorces (Burt Reynolds).

That's life.  All of these celebrities have the right of free speech.  What they do not have is the right to keep their lucrative endorsement jobs after they send product sales down the toilet.