The Chinese Communist Party, caught in a quagmire on all sides, has been rehashing the H&M “boycott of Xinjiang cotton” incident, which continues to ferment, affecting Nike, Adidas and many other brands. Official media not only incite the public to punish the brand, but also launched an overwhelming public opinion campaign to force the endorsement of various brands of celebrities to take a high-profile position, a few days ago at least 50 artists announced that they “cut” with the brand. This has led to a lot of controversy.
On March 24, the Communist Party’s “Central Committee of the Communist Youth League” microblogging account issued an intensive article, rehashing a statement issued six months ago by Swedish fashion brand H&M in response to human rights persecution in Xinjiang, “No Xinjiang cotton”. The major e-commerce companies have taken down the brand.
On March 25, the Chinese Communist Party official media again released a “name” article, pointing out that in addition to H&M, Nike (NIKE), UNIQLO (UNIQLO), Adidas (Adidas), GAP, FILA, New Balance, ZARA and Under Armour and other International brands have previously issued statements “rejecting Xinjiang cotton”.
The war of words waged by the Chinese Communist Party’s official media has not only incited the public to boycott the brands, but also forced the celebrity spokespersons of the brands to announce the termination of their cooperation one after another.
According to an incomplete count by the Epoch Times reporter, on March 25, at least 50 celebrity artists declared their termination of contract with the brand, including mainland artists Yang Mi, Diligaba, Deng Lun, Zhang Yixing, Huang Xuan, Song Xi, Yi Yang, Yang Yang Yang, Liu Haoran, Wang Yibo, Tan Songsong Yun, Song Yanfei, Gulina Za, Liu Yifei, Bai Jingting and so on.
In addition, Hong Kong artists Eason Chan, Timothy Chan, Yang Ying (Angelababy), Wang Jiaer, Taiwanese artists Ouyang Nana, Peng Yu Yan, Xu Guanghan, Zhang Junning, etc. have announced that they have “cut the seat” with the endorsed brands.
Netizens flirted with the idea that March 25 is the day when mainland artists cancel their contracts with brands, and mocked it by saying, “We suggest licking communist artists to wear limited edition sneakers made on the mainland, which are unique in the world.” “It’s hilarious that the yuan really smells good for licking communist artists, who have cut international big brand sports goods; if you have the ability, you all wear ‘Li Ning’ sneakers, then burn all the international sports brands you bought in the past!” “The Chinese Communist Party just wants to choose sides, do you want to form a group to visit the Xinjiang concentration camp!”
Some analysts believe that H&M Group’s “no Xinjiang cotton” statement released in October last year, six months later, was rehashed by the Chinese Communist Party’s official media, and spread to a number of other brands, perhaps related to the multi-national concerted sanctions against Chinese Communist Party officials who violated the human rights of the Uighurs in Xinjiang.
On March 22, the European Union, the United Kingdom and Canada announced travel bans and asset freezes against four CCP officials and one entity for CCP human rights violations against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, and the United States also announced sanctions against two CCP officials.
As we all know, mainland celebrities are strictly controlled by the CCP in all aspects, and they had to cooperate with the officials to quickly “cut off” from the brand after the incident, but Hong Kong and Taiwan artists have also taken a high profile in the “Boxer Rebellion” boycott of Western brands launched by the CCP. Some netizens find this incomprehensible.
In fact, Hong Kong’s Apple Daily previously cited news that the Communist Party’s General Administration of Film had issued a notice in April last year, asking major platforms and film companies to refrain from using RTHK artists who had not made political statements, and that participating artists must sign a “10-year guarantee of correct thinking” political review clause, and that they would have to pay compensation if they violated the contract, causing an outcry at the Time. The public outcry.
As for whether the star needs to pay the astronomical breach of contract with the brand, Sohu.com’s article on March 25 disclosed: “To pay, to pay how much, it depends on how the contract is written inside the contract when it is signed. Then again, it is the time of termination, is not negotiated with the brand.”
The author, who also seems to feel that it’s just a political movement, thinks: “My biggest worry is that so many artists have terminated their contracts today, and when this fever passes, a group of ‘fresh meat’ will come up tomorrow to pick up the slack ….. If that’s the case, it would be embarrassing. After all, wasn’t there a pickup last time?”
Recent Comments