a peace of conflict

Archive for September, 2009

September 30, 2009

The Fair Trade Fallacy: The Reality of TransFair Canada’s Impact on the Coffee Industry

In the last post, Heather discussed a fair trade product and brought to light some of the positive aspects of the fair trade industry. I decided to write a counter to her article showing some of the more negative lights of the fair trade industry to get some discussion and debate going on the topic since I have been skeptical of the fair trade industry and of the supposed non-profit business that is Ten Thousand Villages for quite some time.

One problem I have with Ten Thousand Villages has to do with what I see as the immense mark up of their product line. Have you seen how expensive their products are? How much of that expense is going back to the actual artisan? Many of the products they ship in are priced significantly higher than the price they have been purchased for and my question is, where does their nearly $20 million in profits actually go? I found their annual reports vague in that respect, talking of the need to mark up to cover costs, but not the entire reality of the situation. It talks of profits, but not what happens to them in any great detail, where exactly these profits are reinvested, or what efforts they are taking to reduce their costs and overhead. Their use of volunteer labour must certainly help in this respect, but what other measures must be taken? Mixing business with non-profit status leaves Ten Thousands Villages in a precarious place. The non-profit status afforded to the business makes so that it MUST be under intense scrutiny and I do not believe that it has received enough scruitiny yet to ease my mind so that I can consider them fully “ethical”.

I have decided to take a look at one fair trade product to show the reality of the claims made by both TransFair Canada and organizations such as Ten Thousand Villages about the positive impacts of fair trade products. I chose one of the most popular choices in the fair trade consumption market: coffee. TransFair Canada, the only fair trade certification organization in Canada, attempts to bring equity and empowerment to producers in mostly developing countries through its certification, labeling and promotion of fair trade products. It maintains that it provides “living wages” for producers, sustainability and “addresses the injustices of conventional trade, which traditionally discriminates the poorest, weakest producers” (TransFair Canada, 2008). The niche the fair trade market has created for itself, however, has led to dependency instead of sustainability, the already strong thriving, and excluding the weak and poorest from the marketplace with no guarantee of poverty reduction in the long-term.

Fair trade came out of a response to the capitalist system which favors the strongest over the weakest, leaving many small players out of the international market and unable to receive equitable pricing. It attempts to level the playing field for small farmers based on two principles: paying farmers a “fair price” and providing them with some support to the international marketplace. Fair trade is not without criticism as the fair trade coffee industry demonstrates. Coffee is the second most traded commodity after petroleum in the world marketplace and is the economic backbone of many countries, with over twenty-five million families dependent on it for livelihood. Seventy percent of the world’s production of coffee comes from producers who farm less than ten acres of land, making it difficult for them to compete in the world market alone. The falling market price for coffee has led to devastation for many who were unable to join cooperatives or producing organizations supervised by international fair trade organizations (Utting-Chamorro, 2005).

TransFair Canada is the only non-profit organization in Canada devoted to certification, labeling and promotion of fair trade products. It spouts to incorporate values of equity and empowerment through its assurance of “better prices, decent working conditions, local sustainability and fair terms of trade for farmers and workers in the developing world” by addressing the “injustices of conventional trade, which traditionally discriminates against the poorest, weakest producers” (TransFair Canada, 2008). In reality, the poorest of the poor are being excluded; farmers are becoming increasingly dependent on primary commodities and undiversified crops; and wage increases are being diverted to cover other expenses among cooperatives and producing organizations.

The common perception that fair trade provides a guaranteed “living wage” to small producers and individual workers is deceiving. Fair trade certification ensures a minimum price to the organization of producers but not to individual producers or workers on fair trade farms. Poor management and heavy debts owed by producer organizations can consume much of the higher fair trade price before it ever reaches the growers. Wage standards only apply to employees of the producer organization and not to individual farmers and growers, with specific standards only available to full-time permanent employees. This presents a problem in an industry that is primarily contract and seasonally temporary with very few permanent positions available. In fact, Hal Weitzman of the Financial Times found on a visit to five Peruvian coffee farms that four out of five workers on Fair Trade certified farms received wages below the Peruvian minimum wage, which was not in violation of any Fair Trade standards (Weber, 2007).

The price of fair trade coffee is fixed at US $126 per quintal (100lbs), while the world price of coffee is flexible at around US $56 per quintal in much of Latin America. The reality of wages going to the actual growers is surprisingly similar. Fair trade coffee cooperatives in Nicaragua for instance, found themselves paying out fees of approximately $10 per quintal for processing, $18 per quintal for exporting, $31 per quintal for debt cancellation, $5 per quintal for community development and other monies for capitalization funds, resulting in farmers receiving on average only between US $40 and $85 per quintal for their coffee (Utting-Chamorro, 2005). This is not significantly higher than the world price and in some cases is even lower. The export and maintenance costs of some organizations and cooperatives have led its member producers to be forced to sell their produce in the local market instead of the fair trade market at times to sustain a living. Most fair trade promotional material has led the consumer to believe that workers on the ground are actually receiving the legal minimum wage, if not higher by suggesting that growers are given “living wages”. Many small producers, although assured more stable sources of income, are still living well below the poverty-line despite the guaranteed price of coffee and “living wages” supposedly guaranteed by Fair Trade standards (Weber, 2007).

Dependency remains another crucial problem within the fair trade industry. The reliance on one product as the main source of income is the main cause of poverty for many of these individual farmers in the first place (Nicolls and Opal, 2005). Some experts have suggested that raising prices or wages in primary commodities for individual farmers makes it harder to move into other activities, preventing diversification, and locking the producers into charity channels that prevent them from truly escaping poverty. The price premium then, remains a charitable transfer dependent on external forces rather than a sustainable source of long-term income (Collier, 2007). The fair trade industry is extremely reliant on international support and aid to maintain pricing standards (Utting-Chamorro, 2005) and therefore is not truly sustainable in the long term.

There have also been complaints that the fair trade industry is dominated by “Northern” interests with insufficient producer representation and input into fair trade standardization. Fair Trade Labeling Organization International (FLO), the main cooperator and collaborator of TransFair Canada, responded to this charge by adding producers, traders and national labeling organizations to it Board of Directors (Taylor, Murray and Raynolds, 2005). The industry however remains mostly dominated and led primarily by “Northern” interests. As such, it is mostly unsustainable for local producers without intense international assistance. The cooperative spirit supposedly embodied within Fair Trade does not always flow through the entire process.

The price floor created by establishing set world prices for fair trade products such as coffee results in increased barriers for entry into the industry essentially excluding the poorest of the poor from participating. The set price leads to an excess of supply, which has been experienced in the fair trade coffee market for more than ten years and creates tremendous imbalance in the system. Fair TradeMark Canada, for instance, found that only around thirteen percent of fair trade coffee production was actually purchased by the fair trade market, with the rest being supplied to the conventional market at normal rates. The increased competition to secure the limited number of contracts within the fair trade industry has threatened to exclude the marginalized coffee growers that it supposedly supports. Obtaining certification requires soliciting organizations to obtain export contracts prior to certification and to find the necessary financing to buy and export the coffee, which often exceeds $15,000 per single exporting container (Weber, 2007), completely out of reach for the average coffee grower.

The excess supply in coffee has increased competition for contracts leading to increasing demands for dual certification; one in organic farming and one in fair trade. Obtaining certification in organic farming is a more expensive and demanding process than the fair trade certification process, as costs can soar to more than one-thousand dollars per producer. As the quality standards have increased, the FLO has also begun charging more hefty prices for its Fair Trade certification and has limited the number of contracts it will provide. This has resulted in the fair trade coffee industry continuing to be primarily dominated by those who were already large and privileged to begin with and not the poorest farmers and trades people made in claims. The most obvious way to increase the sales, so as to reduce the excess supply and elimate the market inequality, is to enlist mainstream retailers into the fair trade market, such as Nestle. This goes against the original design of fair trade and is seen as the biggest threat to the industry by many as corporate priorities overtake social consciousness (Weber, 2007).

There are some positives from all this. Many fair trade organizations are trying to encourage diversity, and the cooperative model based on individual democracy of all involved. All of the small producers asked in a survey among fair trade producers confirmed that they had in fact experienced an improvement in their living conditions as a result of their involvement with fair trade. This allowed many of them to switch from using fuel wood to using electricity, having better nutrition, educational opportunities and improvements for their farms. Fair trade has also allowed for more democratic decision making where small producers are given a chance to participate in community development decisions, and allowing them access to technical help, loans, and safety and quality control measures (Utting-Chamorro, 2005). Fair trade, however, has yet to reach its main stated goals of poverty reduction, sustainability and equity.

It is interesting that such a focus in fair wages and conditions has been directed towards the so-called “developing” nations in regards to agriculture while at the same time these problems are being mostly ignored within Canada. Canadian farm workers remain without a minimum wage, maximum daily and weekly working hours, guaranteed rest and eating periods, overtime pay and many other guarantees offered to workers in every other industry (Ontario Ministry of Labour, 2004). Why fair trade for the developing world has taken off while our own people remain without many of these same guarantees is frustrating, to say the least. If fair trade is the goal, it should be fair for all, sustainable and equitable so that rights are guaranteed to all and all have the chance to participate. I also believe that there should also be more stringent regulations that monitor the human rights situations and ethical claims made by these non-profit industries so that we can truly make an ethical purchasing descision.

Sources Cited

“Employment Standards Fact Sheet- Agricultural Workers,” Employment Standards Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Labour, Government of Ontario, Canada, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2004. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from http://www.labor.gov.on.ca/english/es/factsheets/fs_agri.html
Chandler, Paul. “Fair Trade and Global Justice,” Globalizations, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2006, pp 255-7.
Weber, Jeremy. “Fair Trade Coffee Enthusiasts Should Confront Reality,” Cato Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1, Winter 2007, pp 109-117.
Taylor, Peter Leigh; Murray, Douglas L., and Raynolds, Laura T. “Keeping Trade Fair: Governance Challenges in the Fair Trade Coffee Initiative,” Sustainable Development, Vol. 13, 2005, pp 199- 208.
“About Fair Trade,” TransFair Canada. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from http://transfair.ca/en/aboutfairtrade
Utting-Chamorro, Karla. “Does Fair Trade Make a Difference? The Case of Small Coffee Producers in Nicaragua,” Development in Practice, Vol. 15., No. 3, 2005, pp. 584-599
Nicholls, Alex and Opal, Charlotte. “Fair Trade: Market-Driven Ethical Consumption,” Sage Publications Inc., 2005, pp 242.
Collier, Paul. “The Bottom Billion. Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It,” Oxford University Press, 2007, pp163-4.

Posted in rebecca sargent's posts | 7 Comments »

Tags: equity, fair trade, fair trade coffee, fair wages, Ten Thousand Villages, TransFair Canada

September 29, 2009

Cambodia’s Trouble with Landmines – is a Brighter Future Possible?

Written by Heather Wilhelm

For my birthday last week, my boyfriend bought me a beautiful necklace from a great fair trade store called Ten Thousand Villages. The necklace is called a Peace Dove Bombshell Necklace, and upon reading the literature that came with it, I learned that this piece of jewellery was made in Cambodia by a group of artisans who had formed an organization called Rajana. Rajana is completely owned and operated by the Khmer people of Cambodia, and offer fair salaries, education, interest-free loans and many other benefits to their workers. They are working to create beautiful art by turning the ravages of decades of war and tragedy into prosperity for their people. The Peace Dove Bombshell Necklaces are made from the remains of land mines that litter the land of Cambodia and have led the country to have one of the highest numbers of amputee populations in the world. This birthday gift – as beautiful as it is – tells the story of a horrific past and the ever-present danger that face the people of Cambodia.

Between 1975 and 1979 the ruling party in Cambodia was a totalitarian government called the Khmer Rouge. The party was led by Pol Pot and believed in extreme Communist principles including social engineering and agricultural reform. Their radical social reform process was carried out by deporting all the inhabitants of major cities to the countryside where they combined populations with farmers and were forced into labour in the fields. Anyone suspected of capitalism (a group that included teachers, professors, urban city dwellers, anyone connected to foreign governments, and even people who simply wore reading glasses) was arbitrarily executed, tortured or detained. There is a large range of estimated deaths in the four years that the Khmer Rouge ruled Cambodia, but most estimates but the death toll at 1.5 million people. This included those executed by the government, as well as those who died of starvation from lack of experience growing food, and those who died of preventable diseases because of the government’s insistence that westernized medicine be kept out of the country. Money was abolished; schools, hospitals, banks, industrial and service companies were closed; books were burned and as mentioned earlier, almost the entire intellectual population of the country was massacred. Most notable in the long list of treacherous crimes performed by the Khmer Rouge was the separation of children from their parents (who were believed to be tainted by capitalism) and their subsequent brainwashing (children were often given leadership roles in torture and execution) into this dangerous form of socialism. While the Khmer Rouge were toppled from government in 1979, the group itself survived as a group into the 1990s, causing death and destruction throughout these decades.

It is estimated that four to six million landmines were laid in Cambodia over the decades of war fought there, and every year hundreds of Cambodians fall victim to the lasting effect of these forgotten weapons. In a population of approximately 12 million people, it is estimated that more than 40,000 amputees are living, or one in every 290 Cambodians. These amputees are chastised by their peers and have been forgotten by their government, often having to try and make a living selling merchandise on the streets for small commissions. There are many active mine removal organizations that work within Cambodia that are trying to clear mines in an effort to make the country safer, but this sizable job is nowhere near completion leaving the citizens of Cambodia in constant danger or death or amputation.

Organizations like Rajana are imperative to the turnaround of countries like Cambodia that are suffering the after effects of decades long war, as they play a role in creating job opportunities and education for its citizens. By providing fair wages, health care, education and more to their employees Rajana is working to create a different future for Cambodia. Aside from creating a better social welfare system, it is imperative that the international community become active in the banning of land mines and cluster bombs. The Ottawa Treaty also known as the Mine Ban Treaty became effective on March 1, 1999, and as of early 2009 had 156 parties to the Treaty. Once a country has signed, they are required to cease production of anti-personnel mines as well as destroy any stockpile of mines within four years (except for a small number they are allowed to retain for training purposes). Thirty-seven countries have not signed the Treaty, including the People’s Republic of China, India, Russia and the United States of America, all of whom are some of the largest producers and carry some of the largest stockpile of anti-personnel landmines. By refusing to sign this Treaty, some of the most powerful countries in the world, namely the United States and China, are perpetuating a problem that has caused countless deaths and produced mass destruction.

The Peace Dove Bombshell Necklace is just one small way that we can make a difference in the eradication of land mines while at the same time allowing us to contribute to the social development of a nation. A portion from the proceeds of every necklace sold between the International Day of Peace (September 21) and Remembrance Day (November 11) goes to Mines Action Canada while the remainder goes to the artisans making a change through the Rajana organization. While I hazard to use this site to advertise for companies, Ten Thousand Villages has spent decades providing international communities with a venue to sell fair trade items and I feel their work should be recognized. If you’re interested in learning more about Ten Thousand Villages and their fair trade items, visit them at www.tenthousandvillages.ca. To learn more about the work of Mines Action Canada, visit them at www.minesactioncanada.org. While it is often hard to read about the horrors occurring in other countries, at times I feel our minds can be eased by trying to make any kind of difference, however small or insignificant it may seem.

Posted in Asia, Canada, Human rights abuses, peace, Submissions, violence | Leave a Comment »

Tags: Asia, cambodia, Canada, child soldiers, children, communism, fair trade, khmer rouge, landmines, ottawa treaty, social reform, Ten Thousand Villages

September 22, 2009

The Global Hunger Crisis – Why Haven’t We Made More Progress Towards the Millenium Development Goals?

Written by Heather Wilhelm

It is so easy to forget about the true state of the world when we live our day to day lives just going through the motions. Here are some statistics to shock you back into reality:

~ 1.02 billion people do not have enough to eat – more than the populations of USA, Canada and the European Union;

~ More than 60 percent of chronically hungry people are women;

~ Every six seconds a child dies because of hunger and related causes; and

~ Lack of Vitamin A kills a million infants a year.

When I read statistics like these, I actually find it very hard to believe that they are real. How is it possible that I’ve lived 28 years never going hungry, and yet somehow during my regular 8 hour work day more than 4,800 children die of hunger-related diseases? Women and children the world over continue to be the most disenfranchised individuals on the planet, and even the most well-meaning organizations, like the United Nations’ World Food Programme (WFP), are unable to help effectively. A recent report from Reuters states that world food aid is at an all-time low despite the fact that the number of hungry people in the world soared to its highest level ever, with more than 1 billion people classified as lacking food. The WFP has barely enough funding this year to help a fraction of these people, which is made more horrifying by the fact that it would take a mere 0.01% of the global financial crisis bailout package from the United States to solve the hunger crisis. Priorities need to shift in Washington and in neighbouring developed countries, with the eradication of poverty and starvation not only in “third world” countries, but also right in their own backyards moving to the top of the list.

As per the WFP’s website, one of the possible solutions to the world hunger crisis is the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals, which are:

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are eight goals to be achieved by 2015 that respond to the world’s main development challenges. The MDGs are drawn from the actions and targets contained in the Millennium Declaration that was adopted by 189 nations-and signed by 147 heads of state and governments during the UN Millennium Summit in September 2000.

These eight development goals are:

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education

Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women

Goal 4: Reduce child mortality

Goal 5: Improve maternal health

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability

Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development

The importance of the implementation of the MDG’s cannot be overlooked, but considering we are more than halfway through the fifteen year period that was allotted to make these development goals a reality, how much has really been accomplished? If the WFP can say that 2009 saw more hungry people than ever before, clearly something is being done wrong. In an attempt to look into progress reports, I found most sites to be sorely lacking (for instance, the United Nations Development Programme website’s section entitled “Implementation of the MDG’s” last shows an update in 2005), which is beyond discouraging. The eight goals listed above are so basic, so simple and so easily achieved that is simply doesn’t make sense why there hasn’t been more progress reported. As a society, we need to hold our government accountable for the commitments they made to the disenfranchised, poverty-stricken people of the world in 2000, and ensure that they are meeting the requirements set out for each country in helping to bring the Millennium Development Goals to fruition by the year 2015. If you want to make sure they are held accountable, speak up, tell people what you’ve read here and make your voice heard. Local government representatives aren’t just elected to sit around and look pretty – they are supposed to carry our voices and concerns up to Ottawa and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. If there’s one country in the world that exemplifies the spirit of helping others, it’s Canada, so let’s make sure when 2015 rolls around, our country has done everything in its power to ensure the full implementation of the Millennium Development Goals.

Posted in Africa, Canada, Human rights abuses, Submissions, United Nations, Women | Leave a Comment »

Tags: Africa, Canada, children, Heather's Posts, hunger, Millennium Development Goals, poverty, United Nations, Women, World Food Programme

September 21, 2009

UN International Day of Peace

You may not know it, but today is International Peace Day. A 24 hour “platform for life-saving activities around the world and an opportunity for individuals… to become involved in the peace process” created by Jeremy Gilley.

192 member states of the United Nations have since unanimously adopted this day as an annual day of global ceasefire and non-violence. Whether they will respect this ceasefire and how long the respect will last is hard to discern, we can only hope for the best and work at our own peace.

This movement is slowly spreading. While not every nation has agreed, and there are still some non-national entities who will completely disregard it; we can only hope that the message picks up speed to one day be truly recognized universally. It may seem like a worthless venture– the thoughts of dreamers who don’t live in reality… In many areas of the world, for example those from today’s headlines about South Sudan or Somalia, the possibility of a ceasefire seems like an impossibility I’m sure.

But it CAN happen. The more agreed upon a notion becomes on the global stage– the more incentive for people and nations to follow the “rules” and examples set. If this day is treated with respect by those signing nations and peoples, we can create a space for peace to grow. We can create a day to celebrate peace, to explore peace, to study peace, to spread peace…

Cultures change. Looking back even in the last century, the world and our society has changed considerably. The norms of social behaviour have changed. It was acceptable for long periods of time for example, to lynch black peoples in the southern states with no trial of guilt. It was acceptable for long periods of time to deny woman the right to vote. We have changed these norms. We (as humans) have become more equitable and respectful of other populations in many ways over time. We are far from equitable, but this at least shows us that we have the capacity to change our society, our ways and the thoughts and ideologies that were once ingrained in the cultural experience.

It is not necessarily innate for us to be violent. We need only to look to the peace-loving bonobos who solve their conflict through sexual contact to see that mammals have the capacity to solve conflict in non-violent ways. We are creatures of learning. If violence surrounds us, we learn violence. We can learn new ways to handle our conflict.

This day is about exploring these options to conflict, and focusing on a more peaceful existence. You can explore this peace by learning. By reading or watching and discovering what is going on in the world. You can explore this peace by taking part in a public demonstration. You can explore this peace through art or writing. You can explore this peace by examining your own actions and reactions to conflict and by learning new ways to resolve it in the future.You can write letters, protest, speak out. You can explore peace in any way you know how. Celebrate non-violence. Celebrate creation over destruction. Celebrate our common humanity and the possibility of peace. And please, share that celebration with those around you.

Today is the day for peace– what will you do to express peace in the world?

Posted in peace, rebecca sargent's posts, violence | Leave a Comment »

Tags: ceasefire, Day of Peace, exploring peace, international peace, possibilities to peace, rebecca sargent's posts, UN international Day of Peace

September 16, 2009

The Practice of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in Kenya’s Meru Society

Written by Heather Wilhelm

After briefly reading about the prevalence of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) in the Meru tribe of Kenya while updating our website’s Media Watch section, I decided to do some further research on the history of FGM/C amongst Meru women, and what is being done to change these barbaric traditions.

The tradition of FGM/C in the Meru society dates back to an ancient myth in which all healthy men of the village were sent off to fight enemy tribes, but upon their return from war, found their women impregnated by the weaker men who had been left behind. The myth continues that from this day forward, women were forced to endure the removal of their clitorises to deplete their sexual desires in the hopes that they would remain faithful to their warrior husbands. This practice of FGM/C has been carried forward into present Meru society despite the fact that these procedures have been illegal since 2001 under the Children’s Act. The Act specifically states:

No person shall subject a child to female circumcision, early marriage or other cultural rites, customs or traditional practices that are likely to negatively affect the child’s life, health, social welfare, dignity or physical or psychological development. (Kenya 2001, Sec. 14)

In an effort to change and modernize Meru society, elders of the tribe have begun to run an Alternative Rites-of-Passage (ARP) program that promotes both knowledge of cultural traditions of the Meru, as well as modern values.

These ARP programs have been taught in several Meru locations since 2007, and so far more than 2,000 girls and young women have taken these classes as an alternative to the brutal FGM/C. The idea behind the program is to remain true to the values of the Meru and the idea of preparing girls for womanhood through education rather than physical mutilation. These young women learn about relationships, marriage, self-awareness, Meru cultural values and traditions, substance abuse and even HIV/AIDS. While ARP seems like the perfect alternative to FGM/C in the Meru society, there is still a huge amount of resistance to the change and FGM/C procedures are now often performed under cover of night, sometimes by individuals not qualified to perform them. There are so many risks and dangers involved in the practice of FGM/C (aside from the fact that it is a blatant violation of basic human rights), that these procedures are becoming increasingly dangerous. Some of the short-term side effects include severe pain, shock, hemorrhage, tetanus or sepsis (bacterial infection), urine retention, open sores in the genital region and damage or injury to nearby genital tissue. Some of the long-term consequences of FGM/C can include recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections, cysts, infertility, increased risk of childbirth complications and newborn deaths, and the need for further surgeries depending on the type of FGM/C that the woman was subjected to. There are four main procedures used to perform FGM/C and in brief they are:

1) Clitoridectomy: involves the partial or complete removal of the clitoris and sometimes the prepuce as well;

2) Excision: involves the partial or complete removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, which can or cannot include the removal of the labia majora as well;

3) Infibulation: the creation of a covering seal to narrow the vaginal opening. The seal is formed by removing and then repositioning the inner and/or outer labia. This procedure can or cannot involve the removal of the clitoris; and

4) Other: this includes all procedures performed on female genitals not for medical purposes and can include pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.

There are many organizations including the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children’s Fund and local NGO’s throughout Africa that are trying to put an end to the practice of FGM/C. As I mentioned earlier, ARP programs are being created in different regions of the continent, including in the Meru society, but there are still millions of young girls at risk of FGM/C every year in Africa. Moving towards the eradication of FGM/C will require that education and awareness about the consequences of this procedure to young women (both physically and mentally) be made available to community leaders throughout the many regions in Africa where FGM/C is prevalent. In the meantime, it will be up to the many women who have suffered this barbaric procedure, and the brave men who support them to bring forward change in local communities through alternative learning programs. Hopefully the international community will continue to fight for the rights of children in developing countries, specifically the rights of girls, by bringing awareness to the public on such a large scale, that these violations of human rights can no longer be ignored.

Posted in Africa, Human rights abuses, peace, Submissions, United Nations, violence, Women | 1 Comment »

Tags: Africa, children, Education, FGM/C, Heather's Posts, Human rights abuses, UNICEF, violence against women, WHO

September 12, 2009

Corporate Accountability: Political action to stop human rights abuses by Canadian mining, oil and gas companies.

It is about time! Finally, the government of Canada is seeing the light and is attempting to mandate the corporate social responsibility of the Canadian mining, gas and oil extraction industries necessary to stop their involvement in major human rights violations around the world. This bill, if enacted, would help to ensure that corporations engaged in mining, oil or gas activities who often receive significant financial and political support from the Government of Canada act in a manner consistent with international environmental best practices and with Canada’s commitments to international human rights standards. The Act gives the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Trade the responsibility of holding corporations accountable for their practices by submitting annual reports to the House of Commons and the Senate for review and allowing for a formal complaints procedure for those who have been wronged. Essentially, it is enabling a process to help catch Canadians committing crimes around the world and to prevent human rights abuses from occurring by the hand of certain Canadian corporations.

Sadly, this bill almost didn’t make it to the third reading with 137 votes for and 133 against in Parliament… only one Conservative party member voted for this bill while almost all of the rest of the Conservative party (132 of the 137 “Nays”) voted against it.

Profits should not come before people and companies should be held liable if they are committing abuses around the world to make their profits. We have laws against these types of abuses here in Canada and have signed countless international covenants against them, so why should some be allowed to get away with them just because they happen on foreign soil or because they bring in massive profits in tax dollars? Why should the government of Canada support companies if they are helping to commit crimes around the world? This makes us all guilty!

WHY ARE WE CHOOSING ECONOMIC SECURITY OVER THE RIGHTS OF HUMAN BEINGS? THAT IS CRIMINAL!

Why do some stand against this bill? Well, one position is that it will “diminish the international competitiveness of the Canadian mining industry” and possibly “drive Canadian companies to seriously consider relocating their head offices and listing outside of Canada”. Frankly, if companies are not willing to be socially responsible enough to ensure that they are not committing major human rights abuses– then I say– GOOD RIDDANCE to them!

I do not want one cent of my tax dollars going to help support their abuses. It is disgusting to me that we live in a world that gives us little choice but to use human rights abusing products to be part of our society, mostly without our knowledge and I would be thrilled if allowed the choice to choose those that are human rights abuse free.

And as for the claim that it will diminish the international competitiveness of the industry– I say being free of human right abuses gives them a new competitive edge and added marketing capability. How upset are people to learn that their products are made in sweat shops? The mining, oil and gas industries are responsible for much more far reaching and atrocious abuses. Imagine the marketing potential if the government supported the ones who made the effort with a seal of “free of human rights abuses”? It also will make Canadian industries the new standard for the world and a shining example of what is possible; that the industry does not have to be human rights abusing and that we can buy products such as metals without having to feel guilty.

Do we really want an industry that has a hand in committing awful crimes around the world to continue that practice? Does the profit to be had really mean more than the lives of those who are being wronged? Well, according to at least 133 members of our government (because I would also tend to include those who abstain), it does.

Please take the time to review this issue and write to your politicians about it. You can read about some of the human rights abuses associated with the mining, oil and gas industries here.

If you want to write to the government (and I’m hoping you will!), here are some people to try writing to:

John McKay, MP. Liberal Party of Canada, MckayJ@parl.gc.ca- responsible for bringing the bill to Parliament.

Kevin Sorenson, Chair, Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, SorenK@parl.gc.ca
Angela Crandall, Clerk, Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, faae@parl.gc.ca

or Write to:

House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Canada

The Prime Minister – pm@pm.gc.ca

The Foreign Affairs Minister- cannon.L@parl.gc.ca

The Leader of the Opposition- Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca

Other party leaders in Parliament- Layton.J@parl.gc.ca; duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca

Find your Member of Parliament here.

And find your MPP here.

Here are some sample letters for you to use:

If your MP voted for, or abstained on the Bill:

Date:

Dear

Re: Support for Bill C-300 on Corporate Accountability

I am writing to let you know that I strongly support Bill C-300, an Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries.

I am appalled by regular reports that Canadian mining, oil and gas companies are involved in human rights, labour, and environmental violations around the world and by the fact that these companies often receive financial and political support from the Canadian Government. The current government’s response to these concerns is its “Building the Canadian Advantage” strategy. This voluntary approach is completely inadequate.

Bill C-300 responds to the urgent need for a stronger regulatory framework to hold Canadian mining, oil and gas companies accountable, in Canada, for human rights, labour, and environmental violations overseas. Bill C-300 has garnered support across the country and internationally. It is supported by the Canadian Network for Corporate Accountability (CNCA), an organization which includes Amnesty International Canada, the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, Friends of the Earth, the Steelworkers Humanity Fund, the Canadian Labour Congress, KAIROS – Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, MiningWatch Canada and many other organizations. Bill C-300 has my support as well.

I urge Members of Parliament and the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to support Bill C-300, recognizing that Bill C-300 reflects and responds to the recommendations that were made to the Government of Canada by the earlier Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in 2005.

Yours truly,

(your name and address)

If your MP voted against, you can try this:

Dear Mr.,

I am writing to let you know that I strongly support Bill C-300, an Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries. I am absolutely appalled and disgusted to learn that you voted against this bill. How can you vote against protecting the human rights of people? How can you choose economic security over human rights? Against what we as Canadians stand for? You do not represent your constituency by this vote, instead, you do us all a disservice as Canadians. This will not diminish the international competitiveness of the mining industry– it will give us a competitive edge and added marketing potential and set us as a standard for the world.

We should not be supporting, either financially or politically, companies that are responsible for major human right abuses around the world. We should not leave this to voluntary cooperation– because it is NOT enough to stop the abuses from happening. If it is illegal to commit these crimes on Canadian soil, then these companies should not be permitted (and even encouraged through our support) to do so on foreign soils. This is absolutely appalling and I am deeply disturbed that you have voted it down in Parliament. I am disgusted at your lack of compassion for the violated and lack of responsibility in this issue.

Yours truly,

(your name and address)

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?PostalCode

Posted in Canada, Human rights abuses, my quest for a conflict free laptop, peace | 5 Comments »

Tags: bill C-300, corporate social responsibility, CSR, gas, government of Canada, Human rights abuses, mining, oil

September 10, 2009

When is justice violent?

“Justice isn’t justice. It just is.”- Shane Koyczan and the Short Story Long.

Who has the right to distribute punishment over others and how did they get this right? Is it even right that people should be able to distribute justice over others?

The concept of justice is an ancient one, based on ethics, rationality, law, fairness and equity. Over time it is taken on many forms and meanings depending on what one is talking about. Often we see justice as the response to crime– the punishment of those who would violate society’s rules that creates a position of relative “fairness” for those who have been violated. If this is the case, is this justice violent– and if so, is this violence justified?

When we think of the concept of justice, especially when it relates to the punishment of crime, many feel that retributive justice is needed. Retributive justice is the type of justice that says an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth– that the reciprocity should be equal to the wrong suffered. This type of justice is usually filled with angry emotion where the violated feel that the only way to right the wrong is to violate those who wronged them in the same manner as they were wronged.

In this case, violations are met with more violations often in violent ways– but a major deterrent to crime is set in place that can possibly reduce further incidences of direct violence. Changes in the behaviour of those in society to be less violent comes only out of fear of punishment and the deterrents are possibly structurally violent themselves.

Some believe that procedural justice- the use of a fair process to decide what punishment shall be distributed, is the most balanced way of justice. In North American society this amounts (more or less) to our court systems where a judge or jury decides the violator’s fate by comparing the crime and punishment to acceptable punishments of those who committed similar crimes in the past. The violator is still punished, society is still more or less safe, and depending on the punishment, less fear produced is less than in retributive justice (although sometimes these do coincide).

Some believe that the betrayed person or persons deserve restitution for their sufferings and to have justice means to have things put back as they should be (or at least as much as they can be). This is considered restorative justice. In some cases, the simplest form of restitution is an admission of guilt and a heartfelt apology for the violation committed. In some cases, payment is made to the betrayed party by the guilty in an act of contrition.

Sometimes this apology is not enough and the betrayed person will seek revenge so that they can get the satisfaction of seeing the guilty suffer. This is often an incredibly violent form of justice as the violated feel that they need to take justice into their own hands and hurt the violators (and possibly their family and friends) in a manner at least as severe as they themselves experienced.

Clearly, some of these forms of justice are more violent than others. The quest for justice is often explained as Nietzsche’s slave-morality of the weak, those in society who harbor resentment for the strong. Justice in this case, is only found in the conditions of the submission of one people over another. The master morality weighs actions on a scale of good (helpful) or bad (harmful) consequence, while the slave morality weighs actions on a scale of good or evil intentions. The slave morality villainizes its oppressors, the masters, who are seen as the creators of morality. Justice seeks to keep the noble man (the master) down and bring about more equality between them to the point where the submission is overcome.

Distributive justice works on this concept as it seeks to relocate the differences between people by means of re-allocation of things such as wealth, power, reward or respect. This type of justice works on balancing the differences between people. Human rights are based upon the ideal of distributive justice– bringing about balance in humanity by providing a distribution of basic human needs.

All of these forms of justice seem to have an obvious or underlying tone of violence (whether it be direct or structural).

So when is justice non-violent? When does one person have the right to distribute justice over another?

There is no easy answer to this. Justice is complicated. Justice becomes less violent when it uses non-violent strategies to distribute punishment, such as a court system (although I’m sure there’s many out there who would argue that there is extensive systematic structural violence that exists within the system that is prejudice against specific peoples). Justice is less violent when the violator and violated come together for a solution that is satisfactory to both. That leaves both in the least violent position possible.

Many conflict transformation strategies in extremely violent societies seek to bring together the violator with the violated. Often they must live side-by-side together after the violations, and therefore must learn to get along with each other and live with each other on a day to day basis. These strategies involve healing and justice processes that concentrate on having the community work together and come together in non-violence. In my opinion– this is the least violent form of justice because it recognizes the need to heal both the violator AND the violated and bring justice to them both.

The need for justice sometimes overshadows the truth behind a situation, that both the violator and violated may deserve justice. The violator might have been a product of extreme structural and social violence and cutting off their hands or throwing them in jail with no thought to reintegration or rehabilitation to society, in this case, would be extremely violent.

When we think of justice, we need to think of more than just making things right for the violated. We need to think much more holistically and look to the systems and situations that created the violations in the first place. Without regard to these, all we will wind up distributing is violent justice.

Posted in Human rights abuses, peace, rebecca sargent's posts, violence | 3 Comments »

Tags: contrition, courts systems, direct violence, distributive justice, justice, Nietzsche’s slave-morality of the weak, procedural justice, restitution, retributive justice, structural violence, violence

September 9, 2009

District 6 – The Real District 9

Written by Heather Wilhelm

When I entered the movie theatre to watch the movie District 9 last week, I had no idea what I was going to see. I had heard hype that it was a great movie, but as far as I knew, it was just another movie about aliens with great special effects. I quickly realized that this movie had a very important social message and that while it may have been based on events that occurred decades ago, its message is still very much relevant today.

The movie is filmed in a mock documentary style and begins with numerous people being interviewed on camera regarding the aliens or “prawns” that have inhabited Johannesburg, South Africa for twenty years. As the story goes, an alien ship landed over Johannesburg in the early 1980s and remained dormant there for months. Upon investigation, it was discovered to be full of millions of sick aliens who were unable to move their ship. Flash forward to the present and the aliens have been living on earth in towns and ghettos around Johannesburg for decades, one of these areas being District 9, which has become a degraded slum. For this reason, the Multinational Unit (MNU), a military contractor, has decided to move the 1.8 million inhabitants of District 9 over to District 10, a tightly controlled camp some 200 km outside of Johannesburg. The basis for the film was the forced removal of more than 60,000 residents from Cape Town’s District 6 over a fifteen year period between 1968 and 1982.

District 6 (Sixth Municipal District of Cape Town) was created in 1867, and quickly became known as a lively area lived in by artists, immigrants, former slaves and merchants. Approximately one-tenth of Cape Town’s population called District 6 home. After the Second World War, the area was largely populated by coloured residents (in the South African, Namibian, Zambian, Botswana and Zimbabwean context, the term Coloured refers or referred to an ethnic group of mixed-race people who possess some sub-Saharan African ancestry, but not enough to be considered Black under the law of South Africa) as well as some Muslims, whites, Africans and Indians who all lived together in relative harmony, and the District’s proximity to the harbour brought through many foreigners, making it a truly cosmopolitan hub of Cape Town.

Beginning in 1966, in an effort to segregate the different races living peacefully in District 6, the Apartheid Government began the forced removal of residents from their homes by declaring District 6 a whites-only area under the Groups Area Act. The Government claimed that District 6 was a slum unfit for habitation, also making claims that the area was destitute and ridden with crime including gambling, drinking and prostitution. While residents had to accept these as the official reasons they were being uprooted from their homes, many believed that their land had simply become very valuable to the Government due to its proximity to the city centre and harbour, and that the forced evictions were simply a result of greed and land lust. For whatever reason, between 1968 and 1982 more than 60,000 residents of District 6 were forcibly removed from their homes (1,800 of which were systematically destroyed) and forced to relocate to the Cape Flats township some 25 kilometres away.

The homes created for the displaced residents of District 6 in the barren Cape Flats were squalid and meant to contain violence. There was nothing accessible to the area which contained only one highway in and out of the area so that military reinforcements could easily control any insurgencies. Poverty soon took over, as there were no increases in salary to compensate residents for their lengthened commute, and families were often split up, which meant women having to leave their children at home in order to work. This poverty led to an increase in gang violence, and soon, none of the community and togetherness that had once been the core of what District 6 was known for, was any longer apparent.

Fifteen years after the fall of the apartheid government, there has been little change in the Cape Flats that still house many of District 6’s displaced families. While the residents are under no obligation to remain in the area, few have the money to leave the Flats and relocate. Gang violence is higher than anywhere else in South Africa, with gang rape, murder and robbery at an all time high. Residents are currently able to submit claims to the Government in order to be returned to District 6 and the new housing that is being created there to house those displaced by the tragic forced removals that spanned more than two decades, but is that really enough to make up for the racial discrimination and alienation that has been suffered by so many for so long?

The great thing about South African director Neill Blomkamp’s District 9 is the fact that it is bringing awareness to the plight that the original residents of District 6 are still facing despite the apartheid government of South Africa having fallen fifteen years ago. The movie provides metaphor after metaphor for how damaging racial segregation was and still is, and brings to the forefront a very important social message – this is still going on, and we have to stop it! If nothing else, I can only hope that movie goers around the world are able to gain from this film what I did, and that the true message behind District 9 is not lost in special effects and a fantastic tale.

Posted in Africa, Human rights abuses, peace, Submissions, violence | 1 Comment »

Tags: Apartheid, District 9, Heather's Posts, South Africa

Recent Posts

SHARE THIS BLOG