Here is a teaser about the groundbreaking event we are hosting in the EU Parliament between March 19th and 21st, 2024.

 

EU Parliamentarian Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Greens) is hosting this controversial China event in Brussels, supported by members from virtually all groups.  

 

We have invited debaters, experts, dissidents, and artists from around the world to participate in discussions, providing unique personal insights into the situation. We have also invited China's ambassadors in Denmark and Belgium to join the debate

 

We have sent invitations  to the most powerful art houses with branches in Hong Kong, inviting them to a meeting in parliament to explain their stance on taking social responsibility in the countries where they operate (CSR).

 

With EU debates, we spark the discussion on the Western art market's complicity in undermining freedom of speech and human rights in Hong Kong. Can the auction houses withstand continuing their political art censorship in Hong Kong, or will pressure force them to adhere to Western values and refuse to participate in political art censorship in Hong Kong?

 

We demand that they actively use their economic influence in the fight against art censorship; for the sake of their artists, themselves, and to champion Hong Kong's basic right to freedom of speech.

 

What makes Hong Kong's art market unique is that the world's largest Western auction houses completely dominate and set the tone in this market. This dominance is economically advantageous, but it also has a significant downside if they acquiesce and participate in China's attempts to impose art censorship and severe restrictions on freedom of expression.

 

We hold them accountable for aiding China in imposing the rules of totalitarian rule in the city, directly contradicting the values one would expect from a Western-owned company (CSR). If the companies refuse to stand against art censorship, they will be very vulnerable to a PR disaster. A disaster that will be greatly amplified by the unique character of the art world as a conveyer of image-building products

. 

The possibility of a Collapse in the Art Market: The Art houses face serious problems if China deploys the police and legal system to assert that Hong Kong is part of China and that Hong Kong must abide by Chinas rules. If Hong Kong ends up issuing a direct ban on selling, exhibiting, and promoting China-critical art, the conflict may escalate to the point where the international art market may have to cease all activities in the city and move the entire art market to another country. A collapse in one of the most crucial financial markets in Asia may become a reality. Part of this scenario is already a reality today, as subversive activities abroad (e.g. China critical art exhibition in Europe) can be punished in Hong Kong See elaboration Eric Wear (AICAs) explanation on this

 

Staying and imposing China's censorship cannot be an option for Western companies that thrive on providing cultural capital and image enhancement for their clients.

 

The EU event is just the starting point. We may be optimistic in believing that good will prevail, and we know it can be an uphill battle. Therefore, we will work to exert global pressure on auction houses to make them refuse to participate in censorship of speech and art in Hong Kong. There are many, dedicated people, that are concerned to see China’s totalitarian system gaining significant influence in the world. We plan to engage these good people to put spotlight on censorship of art and freedom of speech. Some of these people will also participate in the debates in the EU Parliament.

 

 

It has succeeded before in stopping and influencing the art industry. Recent examples include:

- Mayer Brown law firm faced such severe criticism that they had to withdraw from Hong Kong for assisting China in removing "The Pillar of Shame" from universities.  US Congress hearing about Mayer Brown with Samuel Chu (2021)

 

- Another example could be Nan Goldin (USA) and other artists' actions to persuade museums to reject sponsorships from the Sackler family, whose pharmaceutical companies were implicated in the opioid crisis in the USA.

 

It might be naive, and we may not stand a chance, but we are taking it.

 

Best regards,