Capitalist Solutions

Promoting capitalism as the only moral and practical social system for man!

Disney, Think Twice About Shark’s Fin Soup

By Simon Patkin

Earlier this year, I wrote that some large companies in Hong Kong had been giving in to environmental pressure groups and that this kind of appeasement only seemed to be growing. Since then, some companies have begun resisting pressure from environmentalists as seen by letters appearing in the South China Morning Post’s letters’ pages. For example, since Greenpeace labeled China Light and Power (CLP) a “climate criminal” the company finally confronted Greenpeace over the hard facts about their coal-fired plants.

Bolder have been the Shark Fin Trade Merchants Association (SFTMA) who recently challenged WWF over allegations that sharks are routinely being finned alive. This is where a shark’s fins are removed while it is still alive and then the shark thrown back over the boat to sink to the bottom of the sea. The SFTMA pointed out such footage was unrepresentative of the industry. They also said that finning wastes resources and is dangerous to fishermen. It said that the footage environmentalist’s claim was probably staged for the cameras. Even then, given the hostility of most sharks to men I would not be too concerned about how fishermen got their shark’s fin anyway.

What then about the Walt Disney Company, which is currently having its own problems with environmentalists? Disney wants to offer wedding couples a dream banquet complete with Hong Kong’s famous and traditional shark’s fin soup. However environmentalists are vehemently objecting and Disney’s public relations department are wondering what all the fuss is about --especially since Disney donates to environmental organizations such as WWF.

To work out a compromise, Disney proposes giving wedding guests a card written by environmentalists warning about the alleged immorality of eating shark’s fin soup. That is during an occasion the bride has probably been planning her whole life, she and her guests will be told they are supposedly doing something bad because they wish to eat this dish; the bride’s alleged sin being that she wishes to celebrate her marriage by having one of Hong Kong’s most famous dishes served to her guests.

Some claim that Disney is making this compromise for practical reasons. They want the media to write good things about their September opening rather than see even more front-page criticisms from environmentalists.

But this reasoning is shallow and just makes Disney look weak. It places a short-term desire for good headlines above the long-term health of the company. Disney will never satisfy those critics who irrationally value sharks above human life and any compromise is plain appeasement that will lead to even more demands later on. Just as Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler and ended up having to fight many harder battles further down the road, so too will Disney have to fight harder battles later if they don’t stand their ground today.

Fortunately Disney can fight back.

Factually, the SFTMA has given assurances that sharks are treated humanely; far more humanely than they deserve to be treated. Indeed, whilst environmentalists might accuse the industry of false assurances to support their members, others might question whether environmentalists are once again just making up scary stories to push their own agendas. In fact, Environmentalists often just throw out wild allegations based on the latest junk science at the time. For example their campaign to ban DDT has lead to the deaths of millions of people a year from malaria and other mosquito borne illnesses.

Morally, environmentalists reject human life as the proper standard of value and advocate sacrificing the interests of men to those of sharks. We have seen cases where some environmentalists have cheered when they heard of shark attacks on humans. They call it nature getting even with man. In this sense Disney should identify what these environmentalists really stand for – especially highlighting those environmentalists who think it is occasionally okay for human life to be sacrificed to sharks. Further, when Disney catches environmentalists lying about the facts, they should not be afraid to identify the perpetrators as barefaced liars.

Finally, Disney should stop giving money to these same environmental groups, especially those that attack them. Giving money does not make the Disney brand better; it makes their enemies stronger. As such, this support is not in Disney’s interests.

Just as CLP and the SFTMA have taken their first steps in challenging environmentalists, so too should Disney. If Disney can win the battle over shark’s fin soup, environmentalists will become less effective. If other companies follow Disney’s lead the environmentalists will quickly become what they deserve -- irrelevant.

Email us to learn more about Capitalist Solutions

info@capitalist-solutions.com