As you've been following already ...
... and now, the story makes the Global Times, China's international English language paper.
While it may seem tempered compared to our posts or whatever, it's a massive step for them to print this at all. Thanks must go to Mike for the spark and to writers Jon DeHart and Mao Jiayu for the piece.
The city's most iconic spot for live underground music in Changning district remained shut last night for the fourth day after officials barged in suddenly on Friday evening, shutting down the popular entertainment venue that has been giving artists a voice in the city for the past six years.Yes. In the Global Times. So come on. Let's have some more.
I know I shouldn't expect actual journalism from that propaganda rag, but that article is terrible. At least they use softer paper than China Daily...and the print doesn't smudge my ass cheeks.
Implication: China used to be the Wild West, but now there's Rule of Law.
Implication: This raid was superficially similar to the shutdown of the previous incarnation (Longcao Lu) of Yuyintang three years ago, so they are likely at fault this time, too.
Does Yuyintang currently have the "required licenses" and "proper permits"? I guess the "relevant department" couldn't be reached for comment.
There were roughly 50 patrons, which is about half the 100 people the officials say the place can hold. Did the reporter think to ask why, if both statements are true, did the they actually shut the place down?
That doesn't sound like a very good reason.
Putting aside the irony that on the same day, the Expo grounds were overcrowded and chaotic, and that the subways are dangerously overcrowded every morning and evening, and that every tourist attraction in Shanghai is overcrowded...the commerce officials didn't say, "Don't let any more people in," or "Ten people have to leave for this place to be safe." They went in, demanded identification from patrons of the bar, and confiscated equipment essential to the operation of the bar.
If Yuyintang didn't have the correct permits, why weren't they cited?
If the place was overcrowded, why did the officials confiscate equipment?
Do officials from the Shanghai Administration of Industry and Commerce have the authority to demand identification?
Do officials from the Shanghai Administration of Industry and Commerce have the authority to confiscate private property?
I'm not a scholar of Chinese law (if there is such a thing), and I don't know all the facts of this case (how could I, given such shoddy reporting?) but it seems that the Shanghai Administration of Industry and Commerce acted illegally. If the government is now requiring businesses to obtain proper permits and licenses and adhere to the law, then at the very least, the government branch in charge of enforcing those laws should be held to the same standard.
Wow, that was a long comment. Sorry.
Not at all, it was a great comment!