|
---|
Friday, July 29, 2011
The hypocrisy of LUSH, the cosmetics chain behind the "No one is illegal" campaign which argues for Britain to have open borders and allow anyone who wishes to remain in the UK, is revealed in an interesting article posted by The Jewish Chronicle.
Lush, which has shown strong support of the Palestinian cause, has said it will not open a store in Israel due to concerns about the workforce not being mixed enough, yet it already operates stores in the strict Islamic nation of Saudi Arabia, a nation where human rights and equality are routinely ignored.
Hilary Jones, Director of Ethics at LUSH said that "...we don't feel it's a safe environment to have a store. Would we want a shop where we couldn't have a mix? We have a multicultural attitude to everything we do; we want everyone in the country where we are trading to be on an equal footing as far as basic human rights go"
Full Story
Saudi Arabia is an interesting example, especially for a company with such liberal and ethical policies of equality.
To begin with, homosexuality is outlawed there, it is a capital offence for which beheading is possible. State back abuse of gay people is commonplace with, for example, the case of British man Stephen Comiskey who was detained by religious police, beaten, and threatened with decapitation.
But, LUSH must have some kind of exemption to Saudi law one would assume. Looking at the statement by Hilary Jones, above, "everyone" has to be on "an equal footing as far as basic human rights go". So, homosexuals are allowed to mix openly in LUSH's Saudi stores, do not face any persecution, and LUSH in Saudi would employ openly LGBT staff?
Or, don't their human rights matter so much, perhaps the ethical approach to human rights is not quite as inclusive or ethics motivated as one might at first glance assume?
One could certainly be forgiven for thinking that, at the least, LUSH's ethical policy is somewhat 'elastic' if they can happily operate stores in a nation where such situations exist, and yet refuse to open a store in Israel.
Maybe it's just that Israel bashing is trendy, it's just the hip thing to do for a fashionable cosmetics company, and it wouldn't do to risk losing the support of the pro Palestinian lobby after all, that wouldn't be good for profits.
LUSH's ethics and campaigns may be popular with the oh so trendy and right on PC brigade, but judge for yourself if they are merely words on paper, and the truth of their position is a bit more of a gray area than they'd have their customers and supporters believe.
Lush, which has shown strong support of the Palestinian cause, has said it will not open a store in Israel due to concerns about the workforce not being mixed enough, yet it already operates stores in the strict Islamic nation of Saudi Arabia, a nation where human rights and equality are routinely ignored.
Hilary Jones, Director of Ethics at LUSH said that "...we don't feel it's a safe environment to have a store. Would we want a shop where we couldn't have a mix? We have a multicultural attitude to everything we do; we want everyone in the country where we are trading to be on an equal footing as far as basic human rights go"
Full Story
Saudi Arabia is an interesting example, especially for a company with such liberal and ethical policies of equality.
To begin with, homosexuality is outlawed there, it is a capital offence for which beheading is possible. State back abuse of gay people is commonplace with, for example, the case of British man Stephen Comiskey who was detained by religious police, beaten, and threatened with decapitation.
But, LUSH must have some kind of exemption to Saudi law one would assume. Looking at the statement by Hilary Jones, above, "everyone" has to be on "an equal footing as far as basic human rights go". So, homosexuals are allowed to mix openly in LUSH's Saudi stores, do not face any persecution, and LUSH in Saudi would employ openly LGBT staff?
Or, don't their human rights matter so much, perhaps the ethical approach to human rights is not quite as inclusive or ethics motivated as one might at first glance assume?
One could certainly be forgiven for thinking that, at the least, LUSH's ethical policy is somewhat 'elastic' if they can happily operate stores in a nation where such situations exist, and yet refuse to open a store in Israel.
Maybe it's just that Israel bashing is trendy, it's just the hip thing to do for a fashionable cosmetics company, and it wouldn't do to risk losing the support of the pro Palestinian lobby after all, that wouldn't be good for profits.
LUSH's ethics and campaigns may be popular with the oh so trendy and right on PC brigade, but judge for yourself if they are merely words on paper, and the truth of their position is a bit more of a gray area than they'd have their customers and supporters believe.
0 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)