Bruce Springsteen, Ringo Starr and Bryan Adams are among a group of musicians who have canceled gigs in the US recently for political reasons.
They may genuinely believe they are doing the right thing by disappointing thousands of fans to make a point, but their views don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Indeed, it looks like their moral stance only applies in the USA.
Firstly, for human rights reasons, Springsteen and Starr (I had no idea the ex-Beatle could still pull in a crowd) will not play long-planned concerts in North Carolina because of that state’s recent introduction of the so-called “bathroom bill”.
This piece of legislation forces everyone to use only those public facilities which match the sex on their birth certificate.
Springsteen and Starr think the “bathroom bill” discriminates against the rights of transgender people.
But on a purely practical level they have seemingly given no thought to those women – some of whom might even have planned to attend their gigs – who might be uncomfortable at the prospect of having to share a bathroom with somebody born a man and who might, underneath feminine clothing and appearance, still physically be a man.
Is it not the human right of women to expect to enter a bathroom used only by members of their sex?
Springsteen and Starr don’t seem to care about that.
Doesn’t Springsteen’s and Starr’s hard-Liberal position simply transfer perceived discrimination against transgender people to discrimination against women who might reasonably object to having to share a bathroom with somebody who is not of their sex?
It is safe to say that worrying about sharing a public bathroom with a member of the opposite sex is not a problem which either Springsteen or Starr is ever likely to have to grapple with anyway, for the obvious reason that they are both men.
They cannot put themselves in the position of being a woman who doesn’t want to share a bathroom with somebody who is physically male.
So, it’s easy for them to lecture others on the rights and wrongs of the “bathroom law”.
The politically correct posturing of Springsteen and Starr risks making them appear selfish, self-absorbed and possibly just foolish.
In their defense, at least they don’t look downright hypocritical, though.
Unlike Bryan Adams.
He cancelled a concert in Biloxi, Mississippi over its new religious liberty law.
This law allows some private businesses and religious groups to refuse service to gay people.
Whether this is acceptable or not is beside the point for now.
For while Adams, currently on a world tour, issued a statement saying he could not “in good conscience” perform in the state and added it was “incomprehensible that LGBT citizens are being discriminated against” he has played in India, Bangladesh and the United Arab Emirates in recent years – where it is illegal to be gay and where people are often imprisoned for their sexuality.
In Mississippi, by contrast, gay marriage is legal.
Did Adams put profit before principle? It looks that way.
Adams also visited Egypt last month, where gay marriage is illegal.
In November 2014, eight men were sentenced to three years in prison for charges of spreading indecent images following the circulation of a video of a gay marriage ceremony.
I don’t recall hearing about him making any protest while he was there.
Besides all of this, middle-aged male musicians spoiling their fans’ fun for political views which don’t hold water also risks prompting rumors about whether there might be another reason for canceling a gig – like failing to sell enough tickets.
For all of the above reasons, these celebrities should stop the lectures and get on with the show.