The Supreme Commander of the Ukrainian M... Sat Apr 20, 2024 01:38 | Anti-Empire
Ukraine Now Producing 10 Self-Propelled ... Fri Apr 19, 2024 06:15 | Anti-Empire
Russian Firms Rush to Buy Anti-Drone Def... Wed Apr 17, 2024 08:58 | Bloomberg
Ukraine Buys Huge Amounts of Russian Fue... Fri Jan 20, 2023 08:34 | Antonia Kotseva
Turkey Has Sent Ukraine Cluster Munition... Thu Jan 12, 2023 00:26 | Jack Detsch
Anti-Empire >>
A Blog About Human Rights
UN human rights chief calls for priority action ahead of climate summit Sat Oct 30, 2021 17:18 | Human Rights
5 Year Anniversary Of Kem Ley?s Death Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:34 | Human Rights
Poor Living Conditions for Migrants in Southern Italy Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:14 | Human Rights
Right to Water Mon Aug 03, 2020 19:13 | Human Rights
Human Rights Fri Mar 20, 2020 16:33 | Human Rights
Human Rights in Ireland >>
Liz Truss: Ludicrous Claim that Net Zero Will Boost the Economy is Wishful Thinking Sat Apr 20, 2024 13:00 | Will Jones
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss has written in the Telegraph to counter "ludicrous claims" that pursuing Net Zero will boost the economy and drive growth, calling it "patently not true and wishful thinking".
The post Liz Truss: Ludicrous Claim that Net Zero Will Boost the Economy is Wishful Thinking appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
?As a Woman of Colour, Take it From Me: DEI is Just Woke Indoctrination? Sat Apr 20, 2024 11:00 | Will Jones
DEI initiatives and woke ideology are not making workplaces friendlier but hostile to anyone not fully on board with them, writes Raquel Rosario Sánchez. "The pitfalls are not theoretical to me ? I?ve lived them."
The post “As a Woman of Colour, Take it From Me: DEI is Just Woke Indoctrination” appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
The Government Shouldn?t Ban Me From Having a Smartphone Sat Apr 20, 2024 09:00 | Jack Watson
The Government appears set to bring in restrictions on children's and teenagers' access to smartphones and social media. Jack Watson, who's 15, objects to this potential restriction on his freedom.
The post The Government Shouldn’t Ban Me From Having a Smartphone appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Even Orwell?s Thought Police Didn?t go as Far as Trudeau Sat Apr 20, 2024 07:00 | Toby Young
Justin Trudeau to Humza Yousaf: "You think you can position yourself as the West?s most authoritarian 'liberal' political leader? Hold my Molson."
The post Even Orwell?s Thought Police Didn?t go as Far as Trudeau appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
News Round-Up Sat Apr 20, 2024 01:23 | Toby Young
A summary of the most interesting stories in the past 24 hours that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy about the virus and the vaccines, the ?climate emergency? and the supposed moral defects of Western civilisation.
The post News Round-Up appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Lockdown Skeptics >>
Voltaire, international edition
When the West confuses Law and Politics Sat Apr 20, 2024 09:09 | en
The cost of war, by Manlio Dinucci Wed Apr 17, 2024 04:12 | en
Angela Merkel and François Hollande's crime against peace, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Apr 16, 2024 06:58 | en
Iranian response to attack on its consulate in Damascus could lead to wider warf... Fri Apr 12, 2024 13:36 | en
Is the possibility of a World War real?, by Serge Marchand , Thierry Meyssan Tue Apr 09, 2024 08:06 | en
Voltaire Network >>
kildare |
miscellaneous |
news report
Thursday May 06, 2004 03:57
by matt - anti ban campaign
no_to_coke_ban at oceanfree dot net
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (121 of 121)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121I find it bizarre that FG are calling on people to vote No to save jobs. This is coming from people that are more right-wing than FF and want to go on a binge of "efficentcies" in the public service. That means Privatisation, Job Losses, Redundancies. This is what FG are all about. What about the jobs and the lives of workers in Colombia?
FG you right wing idiots. You're party is on the way out. Your orientation to the Anti Ban side in Coke votes is an attempt to attract the most right-wing reationary elements in the Colleges to your banner.
I'm looking forward to June 12th and seeing FG falling apart and retreating into a small niche rural party.
Hear, Hear,
Well done the students of Maynooth. Give them the facts rather than lies and they make their decision. Hopefully this will act to stop this folly and actually we can start to reverse this ban on other campuses. Well done to all
.
Congratulations to the members of Young Fine Gael Maynooth.
A fine camapign has been fought and won by this fine branch, and especially by Matt Bruton.
It has capped off a great year for th YFG Maynooth branch. In the fresher's day recruitment, they recruited more members than any other political party in Maynooth. Indeed, more than 50% of all students affiliated to a political party in Maynooth are affiliated to Young Fine Gael.
The success of this campaign highlights another success fo YFG. When the YFG is allowed to campaign, there will only be one winner.
Re-run the referenda in UCD & TCD and put YFG in charge. there will only be one winner!!!!!!
"Student jobs WILL be lost"
"Cadburys will be banned"
"freedom of choice"
"no proof"
"ALL the other unions are against the ban"
oh yes, all these facts that are in fact, not facts at all.
From the great tradition of "throw enough shit against a wall and some of it will stick" politics
Makes a difference for the right to be breaking the rules. It is my understanding that in TCd & UCD, the left broke the rules in order to garner extra votes.
I am ashamed to say that I am a Maynooth student. This university has severely dissapointed me. I am not a member of the pro ban group but the reasons why most students voted 'no' to the ban sickens me. It is a known fact that Matt Bruton of Fine Gael lobbied for his own political gain and his lies about Cadburys etc. were the lowest form of campaign I have ever witnnessed. It is universally acknowledged that most students voted 'no' because, "It is unconstitutional and against freedom of choice"...read the facts. These people in Columbia have no freedom - whatsoever. It became a joke in the college as most people, 'like the taste of Coca Cola'. Matt Bruton's vigour was unnatural and insincere..he was on a mission to prove his 'apparent' worth and it is a very sad situation.
As Christie Moore said "Word Came From Maynooth Support the Nazis... The Bishops blessed the Blueshirts in Dún Laoghaire as they Sailed beneath the Swastica to Spain..." (from Viva La Quinta Brigada)
It is a complete lie to say that banning Coca Cola in a shop is unconstitutional. The Irish Constitution says NOTHING about what can and cannot be sold in shops! Nor is it against the SU constitution as in all SUs the membership is the highest decision making body.
As someone who is a student in UCD I can say that the pro-ban side DID NOT break any rules in the referendum. Rather it was the anti-ban side that broke the rules as they had coca cola employees getting time off work to leaflet Belfield and Earlsfort Terrace. This should be considered a donation. If they won I reckon the pro-ban side would have contested the result.
Congrats to all who campaigned in NUI Maynooth. And of course to those in UCD, TCD and NCAD who were successful in their campaigns.
Common sense has prevailed in Maynooth; 621 people didn't vote No just because YFG said to. I wish we were that popular, but we're not.
People voted no, because they recognised that while plenty of allegations were thrown out through posters and leaflets, when it came to defending their position, they could not provide credible proof.
I'm not dismissing the pro-ban side, I know they genuinely feel that a ban was justified, but the simple truth is that the majority who voted in the referendum didn't agree. They can, however justly claim that they got 397 people agreeing with them.
What point is there in giving out about either side now? It's over, at least for a while...
Well Maynooth is a tiny college with a tiny number of students. These students are rather conservative and anti worker, they are afterall in a college dominated by the clergy. I thgink it was a good result to get as many yes votes as they did. Fair play! For any progressive students in Maynooth remember in the country you are in a majority, UCD, TCD and NCAD all voted in favour of the boycott!!
That's rubbish. The stereotype that Maynooth students are conservative isn't true (Maynooth students have been among the most active in protests across the country, even considering thes small size of the college), and neither is the stereotype that Maynooth is a college dominated by the clergy (NUIM is non-denominational).
The coke debate's been on campus for nearly the entire academic year and has achieved wide coverage in the student newspapers. It's also been spurred on by word of mouth and national media coverage of other colleges campaigns. The students made up their minds long ago based on the information provided, and that's that.
It is still clergy dominated, that is fact. The clergy have control over many departments in NUIM and have positions on the governing authority. The Catholic Church still has ardent mass going followers in the tops of NUIM
As is UCD by the way, Opus Dei effectivle run m,any departments in UCD, just look at radiography, students there were told that if they didn't attend Opus Dei events they would fail their exams.
Firstly UCD TCD and NCAD dont make a majority, they count for about 27,000 out of about 140,000 full-time students. Secondly St Patricks Maynooth and NUIM are two totally diffrent colleges and should not be mistaken for each other.
"The Catholic Church still has ardent mass going followers in the tops of NUIM"
I would imagine that this is the case in every college in the country, excluding COICE, the church of Ireland college.
They are the same. NUIM are still dominated by the catholic church, catholic priests train in NUIM. How many members of the Governing Authority are clergy? How many are in Opus Dei and how many are practicing Catholics?
this is the case with every college in the country. presits do not train in NUIM, thy do so in the pontifical college of St Patricks Maynooth. two totally diffrent but often mistaken for each other institutions.
"I would imagine that this is the case in every college in the country, excluding COICE, the church of Ireland college."
That's the trouble!
The education system is still dominated by these mystics. Why the hell should someone that believes in the hocus pocus of transubstantiation and the dead rising on the third day be in charge of educating young minds. Religion is backward and belongs in the DArk Ages.
All people that want jobs in education should be atheists. It is time we had a purge of mass goers in this country.
"they do not train in maynooth - and if they did they would have every right to! "
NO CERTAINLY NOT!
Why should the tax payer be paying for the Catholic Church to train its soothsayers?
The church should be seperated from the state!
If you were to count all the votes cast in the 3 universities, for and against the coke ban, it would be a very close run thing.
TCD & NUIM combined - would give you a majority of over 100 against the ban.
I can't remember the second round vote in UCD< but on the first vote, the combined vote is against any ban.
"People voted no, because they recognised that while plenty of allegations were thrown out through posters and leaflets, when it came to defending their position, they could not provide credible proof."
The pro boycott campaign wanted to have a debate against the pro coke side but they could not get together a team of people willing to stand by their campaign. The Pro-Coke people didn't focus on the issue at all, instead they shifted the focus to he domestic situation and said things that weren't true so that most of the Pro Boycott campaign was spent attempting to undo the damage caused by these inaccuracies.
The evidence against Coke exists and YFG know this, so they made a decision to turn the referendum into something totally different from what it was. It was never a freedom of choice issue. Student jobs were never in danger, and "innocent until proven guilty" is the most pathetic rhetorical position i can think of. If coke had been proven guilty then we wouldn't need to have a boycott.
Hitler was never proven guilty of orchestrating the holocaust, does this mean he's innocent?
The campaign group against the ban were apolitical. The campaign want nothing to do with FG as they are shit and would have lost us votes.
the campaign for coke was run by members of FG FF and the PDs, "an alliance" it was called. it might not have been a single party campaign, but it was by no means apolitical. those who campaigned for the boycott included individuals acting on their conscience, some anarchists and at the very end, members of labour youth
Well I would have to say that this campaign (both sides)turned into a personal bullshit campaign nothing to do with coke, just agendas of people ,political or otherwise.
It is crap to say that the campaign in NUIM was not political. Many of the the posters with anti-ban information and lobbying had Fine Gael logos on them..not political? What nonsense
...I think it is interesting to note that the pro ban campaigners were generally studying subjects related to the humanities: anthropology, sociology, philosophy whereas the anti banners were mostly economics students.
May I take this opportunity to say as a yes voter I am ashamed that my fellow students could have been so easily misinformed.
Bullshit propaganda (like the ban affecting cadbury's) can be hard to fight against as the truth isn't as flexible.
Well done to all the campaigners who fought honestly for the ban despite the deceit that surrounded you.
NUIM SU is in dire need of new honest blood.
"The clergy have control over many departments in NUIM"
Yeah, the Theology department (in St. Patrick's College - different institution) maybe. The only one in NUIM is the Philosophy dept. which has a priest as dept. head. Apart from that - not one.
The only clergy on NUIM Governing Authority are representatives from St. Pats because the two colleges share a campus. The vast majority (about 30 others to two clergy members) are laymen.
So unless the philosophy dept is broadcasting mindcontrol rays over the entire student body, I'd say that you're wrong.
This kind of thinking is typical whenever there's anything concerning Maynooth - "Blame the priests". Cop on and face up to the facts without making poor excuses.
...Wednesday 5th may, as I walked by the polling stations in the arts block peering over shoulders in an attempt to gage how people were voting I caught a glimpse of Matt Bruton (an anti-ban man) around the corner ranting nonsense at bemused students on their way into the reading room, I decided that it could be a wise move to potter off and invest some time into an long neglected essay. I figured that as we had been campaigning for the last semester, putting up posters, handing out fliers and addressing lectures, students were equipped with adequate information to ensure a Yes vote. I also figured that at this point Matt had inflicted enough harm upon his campaign with his crazy lies – eg pro-ban are a group of socialists with an anti-capitalistic agenda, cadbury’s would be banned also etc.
Little did I realise that all it took to sway a vote was to tell students what box to tick.
I am disappointed in my fellow students but am not put off student politics. On the contrary. Decent people avoid positions of influence because they prefer to avoid rubbing shoulders with fools like the YFG-ers. This must end….this is a call to arms to all students who give a shit.
Start locally to change globally.
I could'nt decide so abstained but I passed through the arts block yesterday and the guys sitting at the polling stations had a bottle of coke on the table. Is that allowed if the s.u. are mandated to remain neutral?
The SU Executive in Maynooth were clearly opposed to the boycott and have used all and any measures, many of them undemocratic, to appease the Coke apologists. The lies told in the pro-death squad camp were truly appalling. The concerted effort of the right wing, conservative dominance in NUIM was in stark contrast to the wonderful efforts from those for whom human rights, not careerist politics, was the cause. Lies about Cadbury's, lies about financial losses, allegations (as in the UCD and TCD referenda) of Coke funding the anti-ban side - the blood of Colombian workers taints those drinks and that money.
The students of NUI Maynooth deserve to be applauded for using their heads and voting with facts.
I will not dispute that the "NO" campaign used some bullshit, but the fact that the Pro-Ban team could not stand by their arguments and left them open to change whenever they felt the whim lost them a lot of credibility. This was particularly evident at the outset of the campaign where many minds and opinions were forged and won.
"The SU Executive in Maynooth were clearly opposed to the boycott and have used all and any measures, many of them undemocratic, to appease the Coke apologists."
If you want any credibility why don't you try and back that point up. Two exec. members were pro-ban and one campaigned for your cause.
What undemocratic measures were taken?
Students voting with the Facts?!!! How could they have voted with the facts if-as you agree the anti-ban side used lies to convince them to vote against the ban?
I spoke to a number of the campaigners and it was clear to me from the start that this was a campaign about human rights abuses in Colombian bottling plants associated with Coca Cola. That the campaigners felt coke ought to ensure the protection of their staff and that this boycott was the initiative of a group of individuals who acted as individuals and not part of a political campaign.
A YFG poster clearly stated
"Boycott the Boycott" -GER HEALY, TARA WALSH
Peter Kavanagh (S.U. exec) got up on a table in the canteen and told a full room that cadbury's would also be banned.
The students of NUI Maynooth deserve to be applauded for using their heads and voting with facts.
I will not dispute that the "NO" campaign used some bullshit, but the fact that the Pro-Ban team could not stand by their arguments and left them open to change whenever they felt the whim lost them a lot of credibility. This was particularly evident at the outset of the campaign where many minds and opinions were forged and won.
The Pro boycott team have consistantly been saying the same thing and have never backed down nor have we been proven wrong on any of our points. I could supply the literature that we used on the first day of our campaign and the very last thing we produced and there would be no contradiction anywhere.
Compare this to the No campaign who have been forced to admit to numerous errors and mistakes in their original "factsheet" all of which had been highlighted in the course of the UCD referendum campaign. The Students in favour of the boycott have lost because we were committed to the truth. As in all elections in this country, the main political parties have no qualms about misleading people and saying things that they can not back up
this was a dirty fight and the dishonest side won.
Also Conan Brady, SU VP communication attended a debate in December as a neutral observer and argued that the boycott would cost the S.U. thousands, Irish jobs would be lost, we had no proof of these atrocities etc...clearly not neutral.
I just hope next years executive will do Maynooth justice.
The SU executive remained neutral from the moment they were mandated to. The executive took a decision in November to oppose the ban as "facts" were being changed by each pro-ban advocate spoken to. How many deaths did it balloon into at one stage?
From when the SU adopted a neutral position at Union Council, no one person supported either side with their position.
And as it's obvious that you have qualms regarding the way the SU is run, why not get involved and maybe even run for office- or are you happy simply boycotting our campaigns..?
You know you lost fair and square. When the ban was voted for in UCD and Trinity you all praised the democratic process. Now do you think it may be a little hypocritical to attack yesterdays vote.
Both sides used dirty tactics and misleading information to get their point across.
Matt Bruton's pushiness and constant annoyance did more harm than good to his campaign.
The pro-ban side also had their shiftiness, as we saw at the last Union Council.
Both sides used dishonest tactics, but when it comes down to it, the students voted in a large majority to keep Coke on campus.
At this stage, I just hope that the pro-ban campaigners have the grace to accept that.
Almost every student I've spoken to is sick of hearing about it, and have been for the last few months. So let it go, it's over. Please.
Aidan Molloy the Ents officer was also totally against the ban on coke
Yes, he was!
But in his official capacity, no he wasn't. He didn't announce himself as a Union rep just as Chris Hamill didn't when supporting the ban
"The pro-ban side also had their shiftiness, as we saw at the last Union Council"
What shiftiness are you referring to?
The fact the we found out that numerous signatures were stricken from the original petition for no reason by checking up on our own S.U.
I find it disgusting that you think you have the right to throw mud on our direction.
I'm referring to the fact that you refused to say where they verified their signatures and student numbers, seeing as only the Returning Officer and some other University staff have access to the database...
"Congratulations!
by YFG Member Thursday, May 6 2004, 10:56am
Congratulations to the members of Young Fine Gael Maynooth. A fine camapign has been fought and won by this fine branch, and especially by Matt Bruton.
It has capped off a great year for th YFG Maynooth branch. In the fresher's day recruitment, they recruited more members than any other political party in Maynooth. Indeed, more than 50% of all students affiliated to a political party in Maynooth are affiliated to Young Fine Gael.
The success of this campaign highlights another success fo YFG. When the YFG is allowed to campaign, there will only be one winner.
Re-run the referenda in UCD & TCD and put YFG in charge. there will only be one winner!!!!!!"
Now I wonder who could have wriiten that piece... Matt Bruton by any chance? I have no idea who he is (I'm not in Maynooth) but I'd say thats a fairly safe bet. And of course,now someone is gonna tell me that this guy is some relation to Yogi Bruton?
And I'm glad to see TFG calling for re-referenda in UCD and TCD (And presumabley NCAD) - remember this, becasue if/when the boycotters decide to try and re-run it in NUIM, we will see the little piggies squeal about 'democracy' and 'the people decided'. Oh yes - but I would advise the boycotters not to blindly rush into this again, but I think a left assault on the elections would have more impact. They want a fight - give it to them!!!
Also: Ger states "The SU executive remained neutral from the moment they were mandated to. The executive took a decision in November to oppose the ban as "facts" were being changed by each pro-ban advocate spoken to."
I'm sorry if I appear ignorant, but these seem to be two conflicting statements - The SU Exec was 'neutral' yet it 'opposed' the ban? What? How those that add up? Was it, in the tradition of Dev, a benevolent neutrality or what?
Finally, I'd just like to applaud all those involved in the boycott campiagn, and keep these fuckers on their toes. And of course, remember to hold a special 'welcome home/fuck off' party for YFG in september, after they have been decimated at the polls in June.
You don't condemn the fact that legitimate signatures were disquaified instead accusing us of dishonesty when we managed to find out by ourselves.
how did you find out????????
The Su for most the year were opposed to the ban until recently at Union Council they were told they had to be neutral.
"You don't condemn the fact that legitimate signatures were disquaified instead accusing us of dishonesty when we managed to find out by ourselves."
You're accusing me of turning the point around, by doing the exact same thing... Bit hypocritical, no?
Anyway, the original count of signatures, I had nothing to do with, so that I can't comment on.
However, I was involved in the 2nd count and any of the pro-ban people who were there watching us should be able to vouch for the fact that we constantly rechecked numbers until there was NO POSSIBLE DOUBT that it could be anything else. And we rushed as fast as we could to ensure it was ready in time for Union Council.
Now, care to reveal your illegal source with access to the database? Or do you still not want to 'compromise their position'?
It would be totally wrong to betray the person who helped us confirm what we had already suspected.
The person who ILLEGALLY verified the numbers compromised their own position.
Therefore- your campaign DID use underhand tactics. That's the only point I was making.
And, before you try to refute me, the anti-ban group (or mainly, the head person of the anti-ban group) also used underhanded tactics. I however, did not.
i thats the best arguement you can come up with, Hope you're not studying sophistry
You mean, if the best arguement I can come up with is one that is truthful and valid?
Ok here's what I said so far, I'll recap for you and your short attention span-
I said that both sides used underhanded tactics. (Fact)
Then someone claimed the pro-ban group didn't use dirty tactics, and that the first count was wrong.
I said that the dirty tactics they used included getting an illegal source to verify the signatures. And I said that maybe the first count was wrong, but that I worked as hard as I could to ensure the 2nd count was right.
And now you're refusing to impart who the source is.
So, you admit you had a source... which has been my point all along!!!
A number of points
- this ban is a triumph for democracy because it is a true reflection in my opinion of how the students felt. The vast majority of students drink coke products and did not want to see them banned.
- Maynooth is not right wing or conservative. In fact I have found it to be quite the opposite.
To the moronic comment that FG is right wing. --- I don't know where to begin to reply to this. FG is without a doubt NOT right wing. Just because its not as far left as you seem to be and other parties such as the SWP does not make them right wing. Anybody who has been awake and following Irish politics over the years knows this.
Our campaign was fought with great integrity. The Anti ban group was not just Fine Gael, but a number of parties. Indeed I will be the first to say that two of our MOST proactive members were a member of Fianna Fail and a member of the PD’s. there were also some non political individuals there too.
The issue of Cadburys is actually true. I took the bother to ring coca cola personally and confirm this. A ban on Cadburys products would only apply to those goods imported from those countries in which Coca Cola owns Cadburys. While coke do not own them in Ireland they do elsewhere and so this statement stands.
We never ripped down any of the posters of the opposition. Our posters were taken down in front of our own eyes by a number of the pro-ban side. This just simply disrespectful. Why couldn’t you just play fair? This is not how normal politics operates and it is evident that you have a thing or two to learn before you enter the real world. You may have cheated in Trinity by putting up posters when you weren’t allowed to and winning but you didn’t get away with it here.
It was this and a number of illegal tactics and misinformation by the pro-ban side that infuriated me, but I still had the decency to play a fair campaign. And not rub it in your faces when we won either.
We still stand by the statements we made. There is no proof. We believe in due process. Innocent until proven guilty. Student jobs would have been lost. Our own SU is in much bigger financial difficutly than any other college. Students would not have the freedom of choice when they want to buy coke in the bar at night time. And yes all the other trade unions in Columbia are against the ban.
Accusing the SU of being right wing is nonsense. You know yourself that you had a number of members of your campaign who were in the SU. If anything the SU was split down the middle by the issue. They campaigned on a personal basis and not in their official capacity. They are perfectly entitled to do that.
Misinformation by the pro-banners : you put up posters about the court case coke lost. Implying that, and you told people that it was because the allegations were true. How is that honest? The court case was simply about the nature of the allegation and nothing to do with the facts of the case.
As to the “random Input” person above who accused me of writing that post further up--- I didn’t write it and to be honest don’t know who did.
Reading through this thread it is becoming evident to me and I imagine to most observers that you are clearly bitter about losing the election. You seem unwilling to accept the results. The students of Maynooth have spoken. You are clearly in the minority. Please accept this decsion and move on. When you have absolute prove that Coca Cola have committed these alleged crime, then come back and put it to students.
Thank you for your attention.
"Re-run the referenda in UCD & TCD and put YFG in charge. there will only be one winner!!!!!!""
Eh, it was already done in UCD by Young Fine Gael - they increased the margin of victory for the pro-ban side by some 1000%!!!
I find it amazing that the pro-boycott campaigners have decided to attack the Maynooth SU for playing a role in the referendum when it was deemed perfectly legitmate for the UCDSU to actively campaign for the boycott!!
I know that before any referendum took place in UCD, Coca-Cola contacted the SU president, Paul Dillon and offered to meet with the SU exec. to talk about the planned referendum and talk through the allegations. Paul firstly denied having any role in the campaign and when he was phoned back he hung up mid way through the call!
Next thing he's addressing lectures and being quoted in the college newspapers ................ definately neutral, fair, balanced and all that - NOT!!!
So pray tell - why was UCDSU right and NUIMSU wrong????????????????
Neither side in Maynooth faught a good or a fair or an honest campaingn.
It was a mud slinning match from the very start and never got beyond that. I haven't a good word to say about either side. I wish they had both lost because neither brought across their case well enogh to deserve to win.
This was a bad few months for Student Politics in Maynooth and has driven a lot of potentially goos students away from getting involved in students politics and hte student's union.
Who ever congratulated Matt Bruton at the start of this topic needs their head seriously examined. I have never before had the missfortune of meeting Such a mud slinning, self promoting, self richeous idiot in all my life.
Its a great day for consumer choice
Well done to Indymedia for removing the news of the result in Maynooth twice in a row while giving news of the victory of the ban in NCAD pride of place on their main page.
CRYPTO-FACISTS!!!
I think lowering yourself to such insults is a sure sign that you are losing the argument.
How exactly was i "self promoting"?
I was fighting for consumer choice and the jobs of Coca cola workers as well as our own students union.
What reason would i have in self promoting myself.? I'm leaving this year.
How am i mud slinging? Tell me exactly what i said wrong and what exactly was mud?
I'm really interested to hear your answer.
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=64857
"
The TRUTH behind the ‘Ban’ on COCA-COLA products
· The case was thrown out of the courts in the first instance.
· “no factual or legal basis for the claims” – Miami District court, Judge Martinez
· Columbian congress of trade unions condemns the ban.
· The allegations against Coca- Cola are entirely unproven and untrue.
· SIPTU, CUT, International United food workers, and the major unions in the US and the UK are all opposed to the ban on Coca- Cola products. Take their advice- Do not support this ban
· 10 out of 11 Columbian trade unions representing Coca-Cola workers also condemn the ban
· Coca-Cola was simply caught up in the crossfire of a bitter civil war involving left and right wing guerrillas
· Sinaltrainal ( the union making the claims) support the left wing guerrilla movement of which FARC and ELN are the main terrorist Organisations
· We live in a society where people are innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around.
Have your say, exercise your right. Show that you don’t support this ban. "
this is the original YFG flyer. anyone wanna play spot the lie with me?
it would also be nice if hey learned how to spell Colombia
Did any of the pro-boycott campaigners in NUIM attempt to contact Coke or any of their bottlers to seek any response to the allegations??
Did they ask the Coke workers in Ireland for their opinion on all this??
Did they take any notice of what both SIPTU and ICTU have said about this boycott campaign???
NOTE: If you check the SIPTU website you will find that their official policy is not to support this boycott so can people please stop harping on about this division and that division in SIPTU saying x,y & z.
Simple fact is the only recorded SIPTU stance on this consists of two press statements openly posted on their offical website. So live with it and stop making things up people!
Basically, what I want to know is apart from reading a few extreme left propaganda websites, what the hell do any of you know about Colombia and how can you be so ignorant as to ignore the workers & main unions in Ireland and decide you know more than all of them combined?????
Hands up who's been to a Coke plant in Colombia????
The comments above concerning the UCD SU president are completely false, as many of the IMC editors will know. Please delete.
Ah see, here we go again - You're ALLEGING my comments are "Completely False" but do you have any proof???? I BELIEVE NOT.
But sure that never stopped any of you before. The need for real proof doesn't seem to apply to some people anymore. Jesus imagine the state of the courts system in Ireland if they let you run it!
Tell me, how would the IMC editors know for a fact that my comment is false???
You're obviously one of these people who doesn't believe in having to PROVE ANYTHING. I completely stand by my comment and request that it remains on this board
the first quote is actually true. There was no factual or legal basis for the claims.
and regarding the CUT --- at the time of going to print this was actually true. It was subsequently withdrawn when their policy was changed.
The comments about Paul Dillon are indeed malicious although I can't confirm whether their basis is true or not, simply because I do not know. However the Union here did indeed remain neutral on the original Coke referendum. None of the elected SU Officers in UCD took any part in the original campaign, bar voting. The second referendum was on a point of standing Union policy and was actively supported by members of the SU Executive.
The idea that members of the UCD SU Exec were involved in the original referendum is not true. A student who held a staff position in the Union was directly involved, as is his right.
Well done to those who stood up for workers rights in Colombia in the Maynooth referendum. Commiserations on your defeat and please continue the fight, despite all the nonsense you hear around you people continue to suffer in Colombia and the fight against Killer Cola continues.
these comments are not malicious . They're true. I can confirm this although i will have to consult the person concerned before doing so.
There is absolutely no denying Paul dillon's extreme left wing tendacies. He unashamedly socialist at heart.
This was evident throughout the campaign in UCD.
This whole "killer coke" campaign is based on heresay and propaganda.
If i wanted to walk into intel and shoot some employee that is annoying me does that make intel responsible?????
Likewise to the claim that the paramilitaries were let into the plants. ----- Well lets see..... if you were a security guard at the plant and some masked TERRORISTS came up and put a gun to your head saying to let them in or they'll kill you .... what would you do???
Unless you have a 20 metre walled fortress of a factory with armed guards, barbed wire, dogs and spot lights then you can never have perfect security.
So please son't be so naive and actually have some sense of sceptism when reading reports and claims from a trade union that has coincidentally the same aims as the left wing terrorist organisations in Colombia.
the evidence to show collusion was overwhelming. but it doesn't matter because you don't care about the people so many thousand miles away
I think most people have better things to be doing than discussing blatant lies with some sad hack in a dying conservative party. Luckily for me, so do I.
you idiot there is no overwhelming evidence. what is it? go on prove coca-cola is responsible for deaths in colombia? it certaintly in unhealthy, but if you wanna drink it its your funeral.
A few days after Isidro Segundo Gill was murdered, the plant manager allowed the AUC to hold a workers meeting and tell them that if they didn't resign from the Union that they'd suffer the same fate. They then went into the plant managers office and signed prepared union resignation forms. a few weeks later most workers were fired and the workforce was rehired for 1/3 the previous wage.
[Quote] NUIM is dominated by priests
by abusedalterboy Thursday, May 6 2004, 1:46pm
They are the same. NUIM are still dominated by the catholic church, catholic priests train in NUIM. How many members of the Governing Authority are clergy? How many are in Opus Dei and how many are practicing Catholics?[/quote]
BULLSHIT!
NUI Maynooth has no links to the Catholic Church! You're thinking of St. Pat's College, Maynooth, which has a theology department and a seminary, whom we share facilities with such as the Library, and a few lecture halls on the South Campus. Get your bloody facts right!
There has been absolutely no prove that the managers of the coca cola plant ever colluded with the AUC.
nothing has ever been produced to prove this.
you see, i actually know what i'm talking about.
you have been reading and believing too much of what you read on indymedia and taking it for gospel.
you probably have had a bit too much of gearoid fascist o loinsigh.
It would seem that many users of these boards know nothing about the legal system in Colomba, otherwise they would not go on about workers wages being reduced etc.
The fact of the matter is that Colombian law does not allow an employer to reduce the wages of its employees. In order to do so, a tripartite accord among the employer, the employees and the ministry of labour is required.
Oh and by the way - SINALTRAINAL signed a collective bargaining agreement with the local bottler in February 2003.
I dont know anything about colombia law, but that seems like a loophole to me
The only research you've done is from going to the official coke website and getting popaganda off michael binchy.
you have never been to colombia either, the only person involved who has, you libelously refer to as a fascist (do you have a reason for saying that?)
I have no problem whatsoever with SU Executive members campaigning either way in the referendum. In UCD the Executive did not take a position. Even if we did take a position it would still be the right of members to campaign either way. Despite what some people think SU officers do not have to be "neutral" in referenda and elections. Read the SU constitution.
In the first referendum I did campaign in favour of the ban. Unfortunately due to the pressure of other work I could not have done as much as I would have liked. In the 2nd referendum other sabbatical officers campaigned for the ban for 2 reasons 1. to show solidarity with Colombian Trade unionists and oppose human rights abuses and 2. The anti-ban side were putting out blatent lies about Union finances.
Matt Bruton evidently has Michael Binchys hand up his hole to judge by his pathetic bleating on this thread. Everything that has been said by the pro-boycott campaign has been proved again and again ad nauseum, everything that has been said by coke and its allies has been discredited, the only people who continue to believe the lies are those who have a vested interest ie some sad political career to promote. Anyone who thinks its smart to launch their career by supporting death squads should get his head examined, you sick little pervert.
Some naive fool said earlier on that this would be the first step towards reversing the ban in other colleges. Well I dunno about Trinity, but I can promise any right-wingers in UCD that any attempt to re-run the referendum AGAIN will be crushed with the most savage brutality we can muster. Any aspirant conservative hack should just look at Michael Binchy - it gives me pleasure every time I see him walk around the Arts block with his head hanging, like a dog thats been neutered. Hes never coming back - and the same thing will happen to any sad little shit who thinks he can take us on again. Know your place, fuckheads. This is not a winning issue...
well i can tell you, once again, its a sure sign that you are losing when you have to result to such a level of insults with no proper content.
how, exactly are fine gael right wing? its consists of not just the blueshirt tradition but primarily the cumann na ngaedhal tradition too, and the remnants of the IPP.
you're only showing your ignorance by making such slanderous comments/
i think that is becoming quite clear that this campaign is beginning to turn around.
WHY?
because the anti-ban side is finally getting facts together and not being intimidated by the "killer coke" folk coming up with one unfounded accusation after another.
you are all clearly preying on the fact that people don't have any interest and knowledge of colombia becasue it is so far away. throwing out one fact after another until eventually people give up and say "ah well it must be true... they seem to know what they are talking about"
oh you do know, but what they don't realise is that you are twisting facts so much to suit your own hidden anti capitalist agenda...
Well NO MORE!!! i can tell you.
students are standing up.. thinking for themselves and starting to realise that you DO have an agenda and that the agenda is not "human rights" but ardent anti capitalism.
if you had any sense you would be lobbying governments to something about solving the peace process in colombia rather than trying to get one company out when another will just take its place.
clearly the union Sinaltrainal supports the left wingers in colombia who want a wholly socialist state.
and this involves getting rid of multinationals or at least restricting them until they have no incentive to be there. ( and that will happen, trust me)
to the informed response that we should think again before taking you on and we should know our place.
well.. we have taken you on.. and won.. and it won't be the first time.
The tide has turned.
we will continue on and on until your lies become evident to all. Can you hear that? thats the sound of impending doom. your destruction. and it draws nigh.
enjoy your promince while it lasts my friends. your time in the sun will be brief.
LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY!!!!
And this guy masterminded the pro death-squad referendum victory in Maynooth?! I haven't encountered such a rabid, non-sensical rant since I heard fellow blueshirt JP 'up ya boya' McArdle down at USI conference. Put this mad dog on a leash!
And there's me thinking I haven't seen such a nonsensical rant since the last time a pro-boycott poster was thrust upon me..!
Peter Kavanagh did make an announcement informing voters about the referendum.
When the hippies had a problem, he made a retraction despite the fact that, due to the wording chosen by the pro-ban campaign for the motion, Cadbury's would, in fact be banned.
And could people stop complaining about the SU Exec being biased.
You had the Clubs Officer at your information stand giving out pro-ban leaflets!!!
"And this guy masterminded the pro death-squad referendum victory in Maynooth?!"
Oi, you- Crusty! What exactly would this referendum achieve seeing as so many Union leaders have been killed in Columbia, the vast majority having sweet fuck all to do with Coca Cola?!
"And this guy masterminded the pro death-squad referendum victory in Maynooth?! I haven't encountered such a rabid, non-sensical rant since I heard fellow blueshirt JP 'up ya boya' McArdle down at USI conference. Put this mad dog on a leash!"
ehhhh in case you haven't noticed Fine gael is not the blueshirts.
they no longer exist.
you're about 70 years too late there.
been reading to much phoenix magazine i can see.
and "pro-death squad"????
what are you talking about.
this whole situation is laughable. you're insults are only reflecting badly on you. you have no proper back up to your arguments. you're fighting a losing battle and you know it.
please challenge on the facts. think with your head.
it will do you wonders.
thinks "Facts" include quoting anonymous sources and when challenged replying "it is a quote, i just said it"
can you please tell me when all this was said?
A point was argued that it is unlikely that the pro ban side would not try to collect signatures again. They would not have to, all they would need to do is submit a motion to the Union Council. Several of us class reps who reckoned the student body should have had there democratic say on the issue earlier supported such a motion.
i think the general consensus in the college is that the issue is setlled. the campaign has been going on all year and people are sick of it.
it is unlikely that the reps will vote for another referendum and an attempt to bring one up won't go down well.
i'm not trying to prevent it or anything just being realistic. tis the feeling in maynooth anyway.
i just hope that the racism shown by the no voters wont carry through to the upcoming referendum...
The ya-hoo sisterhood support your campaign. yee-haa! dig your heels in and corral those cowboys!
NUI Maynooth's Student Union Council had a vote on whether or not to hold a referendum on Coke, and it was heavily defeated. That's why the pro-ban side had to collect 1300 approx signatures in the first place; it was the only way to hold a referendum when Union Council had rejected it.
sorry but can you clarify what you mean please?
how have we been racist?
[quote]i just hope that the racism shown by the no voters wont carry through to the upcoming referendum...
[/quote]
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Seriously.
It's a bit of an accusation and generalisation to make, saying that everybody who voted no is a racist... Fool.
i think its wonderful that you have all lost the argument.
the tide is indeed turning and you will all go back into the hole form whence you came.
wuha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!
"i just hope that the racism shown by the no voters wont carry through to the upcoming referendum..."
The only racism shown thus far has been the pro-bans pathetic attempt at slurring, denouncing the Maynooth voters as right wing, authoritatian, death squad squad supporters.
Remove head from sphincter before writing in future
Dear god! I've never met Matt Bruton but the man is clearly quite insane. Anyway, if he has such confidence in his knowledge of the "facts", as opposed to confidence in his ability to lie shamelessly with a straight face and a shrill tone, perhaps he'd like to come to UCD some time and we can have a public debate on the subject ... or does the prospect of total public humiliation not seem very attractive to you, fucko?
Just so his complacent little bubble will be punctured once again, I will repeat some of the unquestioned facts about Coke and Colombia:
1) SINALTRAINAL does not support FARC or the ELN (YFG revealed their total ignorance of Colombian politics by referring to the non-existent "ELM", a small example of the cretinous, deceitful little minds at work here)
2)Coke managers have invited paramilitaries into their own plants to threaten members of SINALTRAINAL with death
3)Several workers have been killed INSIDE plants, which are guarded at all times by heavily-armed Coke security guards; it would be totally impossible for this to happen without permission from the management
4)One group of workers (I met one of them) was accused by the management of planting a bomb in their own factory; after they had been held in prison for six months, the state prosecutor confirmed that the whole thing had been a frame-up by managers
This has all been confirmed again and again and again by reliable sources (Amnesty International, for one - I suppose they were just betraying their hidden anti-capitalist, totalitarian agenda too, were they?). Coke and their accompliceshave constantly referred to "objective sources" which back their own version of events, but have never once produced such sources.
Loony Matt's claim that "the tide is turning" is utterly laughable. If his fellow gimp Michael Binchy had managed to overturn the UCD ban, maybe this campaign could have been stopped, but the momentum that's been built up now is too formidable for any vicious little swine to stop. But still, the intention was there: the intention to create conditions in which it would have been much easier for paramilitary thugs to murder union activists and their families. I stand by my comment that you, Matt, are a sick little pervert. Some people get excited by pictures of children being raped, others get excited by organising a political campaign against human rights: both are equally disgusting.
Anyway, the fact that YFG has to resort to such gutter-scraping to boost its profile is a happy omen of its impending demise. Someone once described the tsarist regime in russia as "absolutism tempered by incomptence". The student right-wing in Ireland could well be described as "evil tempered by rampant idiocy"....
----------1) SINALTRAINAL does not support FARC or the ELN (YFG revealed their total ignorance of Colombian politics by referring to the non-existent "ELM", a small example of the cretinous, deceitful little minds at work here)----------
okay, first off it shows little credit to your argument if a small typo is all you can throw at us. The aims of Sinaltrainal, if you look up their website, are more than a little similar to those of FARC. Its like saying that Sinn Fein are not the IRA. we're not saying that they are definintefly the the same, just warning people to be a little apprehensive when listening to ONE union out of many throwing such accusations around the place.
----------2)Coke managers have invited paramilitaries into their own plants to threaten members of SINALTRAINAL with death-------
there has been NO EVIDENCE produced to support this claim. more slanderous accusations without foundations
----------3)Several workers have been killed INSIDE plants, which are guarded at all times by heavily-armed Coke security guards; it would be totally impossible for this to happen without permission from the management-------
plants?? you mean just coca cola plants? correct me i i'm wrong so far as im aware it was only isiduro gil who was killed inside a plant, and even at that he was killed just inside the gates.
and by the way yes it would, and you know FULL WELL , be possible to get passed even armed security , quite simply by having more arms than they do. As i said unless you have a fortress of a factory you can never have full security. So yet another false allegation.
-------4)One group of workers (I met one of them) was accused by the management of planting a bomb in their own factory; after they had been held in prison for six months, the state prosecutor confirmed that the whole thing had been a frame-up by managers-------
okay i will be the first to admit that i don't know the ins and outs of every case. So i shoud mention to people reading this , that just because you can throw something out and people dont know what you're talking about doesnt make it true.
anyway, if this is true, then this is the worst you can throw at coke and is hardly worth boycotting them over.
PS. Throwing insults at me does not add credibility to your argument. Just give up...... you know you're losing. :-)
Could you please explain to me how Fine Gael are not right wing ?. But then again it doesn't matter they are still incompetent uninspiring and facing an inevitable extinction!
if you look up their website you can see that their aims are more than a little similar. they must be the same organisation.
So the best you can say is that "the aims of SINALTRAINAL and Farc are rather similar"? Brilliant, Matt, brilliant! So what you're saying is, Farc and SINALTRAINAL are both critical of foreign multinationals, the Colombian army, and the US government, they both call for land reform, labour rights and the redistribution of wealth, so they must be the same.
This is the same logic that was applied by Ian Paisley and his ilk in the 70s: the civil rights movement must be a terrorist conspiracy, because it calls for the same things as the IRA: disbandment of the B Specials, withdrawal of troops from nationalist areas, an end to discrimination in housing and unemployment, and so on. What Paisley conveniently ignored (as do you) was the difference of methods: there was all the world of difference between those who wanted to change society by non-violent means, and those who were willing to bomb civilian targets. The same applies to SINALTRAINAL and Farc. SINALTRAINAL's position as regards political violence is totally clear: they want negotiations between the government and the guerrillas, leading to an end to ALL violence (not just Farc violence).
What you're saying, in effect, is that anyone who criticises US multinationals or the Colombian army is an ally of terrorists. This is exactly what the gangsters in Bogota say to justify the murder of trade union leaders.
You accuse me of "quibbling over typos"; in fact, your "typo" exposed YFG's total ignorance of Colombian politics (imagine a Colombian accusing Fine Gael of supporting the "ULF" terrorist group and you'll see how absurd you sound). Farc and the ELN are two separate, rival groups; if you support one, you wouldn't support the other (SINALTRAINAL support neither, of course).
Your response to the other examples I give is even more feeble: you simply assert that something didn't happen, when it patently did. The allegations made by SINALTRAINAL have been verified by Amnesty, the Colombian CUT and the International Labor Right Fund: all very trustworthy sources. Where are your sources? The Coke website?
Even Coke themselves wouldn't deny that one of their managers invited paramilitaries into his plant to threaten his workers; their Latin American spokesman who appeared on Pat Kenny with Gearoid admitted that this was true, but said "he's no longer a manager". He didn't mention the fact that said manager was on the run from the police for collaborating with paramilitaries; that was why he was no longer managing the plant, not because Coke were appalled by his behaviour.
You insist that paramilitaries could "easily" get into a plant, against the will of the security guards. How many of these plants have you see? I've heard from Gearoid, who's been to several of them, that they are impregnable without the permission of managment (he was never able to get in). I'll take the word of a man who knows what he's talking about over yours, thanks very much.
You expose yourself totally by admitting that you "don't know the ins and outs of every story". Really? So you're willing to run a campaign to defend Coke when you can't honestly say that the allegations against them are false? And you don't find it at all disturbing that managers would frame workers as terrorists and have them jailed for six months? That doesn't suggest to you that labour relations might be a little irregular?
So in conclusion, this is what you are saying:
1) Anyone who criticises Coke or other multinationals is an ally of terrorists (ergo a legitimate target for the AUC, as you must understand by now)
2) You are happy to defend Coke against every allegation despite not knowing "the ins and outs" (ie anything at all) about the cases
3) You reject the testimony of reliable sources like Amnesty International in favour of Coke's assertions and your own imagination; you even deny stories that Coke itself admits are true
4) Even if it is true that Coke framed their own workers and had them jailed, you don't find that at all worrying
I really would love to debate this with you in public, Matt. Anytime, anywhere, Maynooth, UCD, I'd just love to take you on, since you seem so sure of yourself. You seem upset that I insulted you personally. Well I said a couple of things:
a) That you are insane; your earlier posts on this thread certainly seemed to betray an unhinged mind, so I repeat this allegation
b) That you are a pervert. This may be hard to swallow, but it's true. You were quite happy to run a campaign to promote your own irrelevant ego when other people's lives were at stake. This is just sick. You are a twisted little freak. I regard you in the same light as someone who buys child pornography over the Internet.
Anyway, your contention that we are losing is, happily, as wrong as everything else you had to say. If your YFG comrades had been able to stop the UCD referendum first time around, this campaign might have been halted. Now, it has spread to Trinity and NCAD, it has been more successful than we ever could have imagined. The narrow defeat in Maynooth is a minor setback.
Furthermore, I expect that activists in Maynooth will have gained some valuable campaigning experience from the referendum, and doubtless the existence of a hate figure like yourself will spur them on to further campaigns. When Maynooth is controlled by the "extreme left", just like UCD is today, you will deserve some of the credit, just as Aongus Hourihane deserves the credit for the radicalisation of UCD.
One final point, Matt: you may find it baffling that "extremist communists" like Paul Dillon can win elections and become popular. However, when you define an "extremist communist" as anyone who supports human rights and social justice, it becomes easier to understand. Most people, in UCD, Maynooth or anywhere, agree with the aims of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That's what SINALTRAINAL and people like them are fighting for, and that's why we support them. The resistance to the UD's full implementation has plenty of wealth, power and violence on its side, but it doesn't have morality, and that's why people like you, despite whatever ephemeral successes you may register, are ultimately doomed to defeat.
Now go away you sad little man it must be past your bedtime...
Lets deal with the content of that extremely long post....
----------------Your response to the other examples I give is even more feeble: you simply assert that something didn't happen, when it patently did. The allegations made by SINALTRAINAL have been verified by Amnesty, the Colombian CUT and the International Labor Right Fund: all very trustworthy sources. Where are your sources? The Coke website?-------------
What allegations have been verified? Tell me precisely what the allegations are and where EXACTLY they can be verified Please. the readers of your last post deserve to know.
---------------Even Coke themselves wouldn't deny that one of their managers invited paramilitaries into his plant to threaten his workers; their Latin American spokesman who appeared on Pat Kenny with Gearoid admitted that this was true, but said "he's no longer a manager". He didn't mention the fact that said manager was on the run from the police for collaborating with paramilitaries; that was why he was no longer managing the plant, not because Coke were appalled by his behaviour.------
Please tell me again EXACTLY what was said for our readers. Your 'Cause' has a nasty habit of exagerrating things.
the allegation that he is on the run is false.
No evidence was produced to support this.
as was said by one of your friends its the kind of
'throw enough shit against the wall and some of it will stick' politics that you are playing.
------------You insist that paramilitaries could "easily" get into a plant, against the will of the security guards. How many of these plants have you see? I've heard from Gearoid, who's been to several of them, that they are impregnable without the permission of managment (he was never able to get in). I'll take the word of a man who knows what he's talking about over yours, thanks very much.-----------
how many masked men with Guns did Gearoisd have with him threatening the lives of the security guards unless they let him in?
i suspect none.
therefore drop this point- it doesn;t stand up/
--------------You expose yourself totally by admitting that you "don't know the ins and outs of every story". Really? So you're willing to run a campaign to defend Coke when you can't honestly say that the allegations against them are false? And you don't find it at all disturbing that managers would frame workers as terrorists and have them jailed for six months? That doesn't suggest to you that labour relations might be a little irregular?----------
Again throw enough shit--- your stories change and evolve over time. my point which you don't seem to undrstand was that framing workers, even if this is true ( and you have yet to produce court documents to prove this)
is a far cry from "killer coke" which is the core of your campaign. Deal with the proven facts please.
and finally i am not denying that things are not perfect in colombia. what we have been persistently saying in the anti ban campaign is that if you can prove conclusively that coke are guilty of these crimes then we will boycott them .
what is so hard to understand about this?
is it not a fundamental right of the european union that a person is innocent untilproven guilty?
please answer me this.
Anyone who wants details about Colombia should go to the killer coke website given below. In particular, they should go to the news section, and read the lengthy refutation of Coke's lies from September 2003.
Lets deal with the content of that extremely long post....
Well I see you didn't attempt to deal with my (if I may say so) rather irrefutable response to your shameful attempt to smear SINALTRAINAL as terrorists. This is welcome, but I would like to see you acknowledge how shabby and deceitful this was.
What allegations have been verified? Tell me precisely what the allegations are and where EXACTLY they can be verified Please. the readers of your last post deserve to know.
I have mentioned quite a few of the allegations. As I said above, anyone who wants proof should start with the killer coke website, and move on to various human rights groups. The statement from September 2003 is an excellent starting point, though.
He didn't mention the fact that said manager was on the run from the police for collaborating with paramilitaries; that was why he was no longer managing the plant, not because Coke were appalled by his behaviour.------
Please tell me again EXACTLY what was said for our readers. Your 'Cause' has a nasty habit of exagerrating things.
the allegation that he is on the run is false.
No evidence was produced to support this.
Why do you say this allegation was false? On what grounds? The Latin American director who came to Ireland was the one who mentioned that the manager was on the run; he just didn't explain why, implying that he was fleeing from terrorist violence, not the law. We heard this from Luis Eduardo Garcia, the SINALTRAINAL activist. This can also be verified by checking killercoke.org.
how many masked men with Guns did Gearoisd have with him threatening the lives of the security guards unless they let him in?
i suspect none.
therefore drop this point- it doesn;t stand up/
I'm afraid I have no intention of dropping this point. The same day that Isidro Gil was shot inside the plant, paramilitaries returned at the invitation of management. They handed out forms that had been prepared by managers, repudiating SINALTRAINAL, forcing the workers to sign them at gun-point. No security guard had to be threatened, the management were more than happy to collaborate. The happy result (for them) was a drastic fall in wages.
--------------You expose yourself totally by admitting that you "don't know the ins and outs of every story". Really? So you're willing to run a campaign to defend Coke when you can't honestly say that the allegations against them are false? And you don't find it at all disturbing that managers would frame workers as terrorists and have them jailed for six months? That doesn't suggest to you that labour relations might be a little irregular?----------
Again throw enough shit--- your stories change and evolve over time. my point which you don't seem to undrstand was that framing workers, even if this is true ( and you have yet to produce court documents to prove this)
is a far cry from "killer coke" which is the core of your campaign. Deal with the proven facts please.
Framing workers is not a "far cry" from "killer coke". It is a short walk. In Colombia, calling someone a terrorist, an ally of FARC, is a direct invitation for the AUC and other similar groups to murder them. Everyone in Colombia understands this. The frame-up, along with countless other incidents where management accused SINALTRAINAL of working with left-wing guerrillas, led directly to murder, with absolute predictability. Managers knew exactly what they were doing. I have to produce "court documents" to prove this, do I? I'm afraid the Colombian legal system is so dodgy that there have been just a handful of convictions for the thousands of murders of union activists in the last 10-15 years. I heard what happened from one of the workers who was imprisoned as a result of the managerial frame-up.
Our/my stories don't "change and evolve" over time. What happens is that you hear stories we have been repeating from day one at this late stage because you haven't bothered to familiarise yourself with the details of the situation - I suppose the less you know, the easier it is for you to sleep at night.
and finally i am not denying that things are not perfect in colombia. what we have been persistently saying in the anti ban campaign is that if you can prove conclusively that coke are guilty of these crimes then we will boycott them .
what is so hard to understand about this?
is it not a fundamental right of the european union that a person is innocent untilproven guilty?
please answer me this.
I certainly will. The standards of proof that you demand are unattainable. What you seem to be saying is that until Coke are convicted in a court of law, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Well Osama Bin Laden hasn't been convicted for 9/11, but I wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt either. As I've said, the Colombian courts are not a viable option for SINALTRAINAL. The American courts MAY be an option; but the relevant legislation was not designed to help Colombian trade unionists prosecute US multinationals, and Coke's legal budget may fix the verdict anyway. In the meantime, people are threatened with death and there's no time to waste.
This boycott was not the invention of Irish "extreme socialists" with a rabid hatred of Coke. It was called for by the Colombian Coke workers themselves. It has been supported by the Colombian Congress of Trade Unions. It is based on allegations that have been supported by a wide range of labour and human rights organisations. Ultimately, I believe in what SINALTRAINAL are saying, because I have met people like Gearoid O'Loinsigh and Luis Eduardo Garcia, who have experienced it all first hand, and heard them describe it face to face. There is not the slightest incentive in the world for them to lie, they have absolutely nothing to gain from doing so. I believe them, and I know that if people like you have their way there is a good chance that they will be dead. They may end up dead anyway, but I know that I've done whatever I can to prevent that. And you should know that you've done whatever you could to make it more likely. I notice there's been a change in tone from the deranged bombast of your earlier posts to cod-humility. Perhaps you might care to go one step further and show some actual humility, and apologise for getting involved in such an important issue for the sake of promoting your irrelevant political career. If you imagine that YFG is going to be allowed to march to victory on the blood and bones of dark-skinned people in faraway countries, you are very much mistaken - you have no idea what you're up against. Go home now to your mammy while you still can.
Dan condemns Matt, claiming that he used Coke's website for his evidence, but then cites that deyon of impartiability killercoke.org for his anti-coke information.
Dan, could you provide a direct link to any amnesty international statement which provides evidence for a link between Coke & the AUC or between coke & the murders?
Also, what capacity are you speaking in Dan? You tage UCDSU to your name, so I presume the UCD SU are endorsing your claims and will fund your defence against libel?
I am Postgraduate and Evening Students Officer for UCDSU, so that's why I sign on that way. I very much doubt Coke will sue me for libel, when they didn't try to sue any of us for making the same claims over two referendum campaigns. If Matt Bruton wishes to sue me, be my guest, I will stand up in any court and defend the claim that he is a "twisted little freak" and so on. I don't think any judge would take such a libel case very seriously.
Before dismissing the killercoke website, I suggest you read the statement I referred to above and see if you can pick holes in it. The credibility gap is entirely on coke's side, I'm afraid, which is why this campaign is going from strength to strength.
Dan's comments on this issue, while a mite personalised, display the very real passion fought for by those opposed to the regime of teror inflicted on innocent workers in Coke plants in Colombia. Attempts to paint those against the very real violence inflicted by Panamco/Bebidas-sponsored death squads as extremists are disingenuous in the extreme.
In UCD alone members of a number of political parties - Labour Youth, Ógra Sinn Féin, the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers' Party - took an active involvement in the campaign against the murder, torture and intimidation of trade unionists, workers and their families.
However, the vast majority of those involved in the campaign were not aligned to any political party. Some would have described themselves as socialists, some as anarchists.
Many would not have described themselves as either.
Some have been involved in the anti-capitalist movement. More have not been. Key involvement came from activists within Amnesty International, an organisation who few will find problems with. In Trinity College there was a similar situation. Extremists one and all?
So far students in University College, Dublin (twice), Trinity College and the National College of Art and Design have supported the boycott tactic to force Coca-Cola's hand in supporting enhanced security for their own workers, paying compensation to those bereaved and promoting workers rights.
They have been joined in this by the Teachers Union of Ireland, SIPTU's Education Branch, Labour Youth, Ógra Sinn Féin, a number of other youth wings of political parties, several bars and shops and genuine individuals concerned with abuses of human rights.
All of the above extremists? People stupidly "influenced" by extremists?
YFG, You're having a laugh.
I look forward to the day where I can look at a can of Coke and not think of the disgust in the face of Luis Eduardo Garcia as he told of the horrific killing of his friend. Who knows, if and when Coke change their tack and behave responsibly, I may even take a sup. That day may be far off, but probably not as far as some might think.
Dermot, can I take that the UCDSU & your personally endorse the allegations that Matt Bruton is akin to a paedophile ?
Dan is engaging in a disgusting campaign of dirty tricks and abuse.
He should apologise and the UCDSU should distance themselves from his disgusting name calling.
People need to be able to experience real debate rather than personalised abuse. Is the aim of the UCDSU to insult and offend anyone who disagrees with them?
Nobody called Matt a paedophile, an observation was made about the appearance of low moral standards and this was backed up with reference to the actions of said individual.
If it caused offense it is most likely because it was meant to. It could be said that the offense Matt caused to the people of Colombia through his defence of coca-cola was far greater.
What about the offence you're causing to coke workers in Ireland?
They are... and i know this for a fact... very annoyed over this whole ban.
tell me... why is it that only one union out of about 11 support this ban in colombia? are they all twisted little perverts?
-----------------Anyone who wants details about Colombia should go to the killer coke website given below. In particular, they should go to the news section, and read the lengthy refutation of Coke's lies from September 2003 I have mentioned quite a few of the allegations. As I said above, anyone who wants proof should start with the killer coke website, and move on to various human rights groups. The statement from September 2003 is an excellent starting point, though..--------------
HA! are you really serious? an unaccountable, website full of nothing but allegations?
I notice that you are still dodging the question. Can you point me and others to exactly where we can find evidence of these allegations?
Don;t just sweep it off and say "ah well you can find the rest on other such websites..." find it for us!!!! Evidence please!!! your campaign has yet to produce it.
---------Well I see you didn't attempt to deal with my (if I may say so) rather irrefutable response to your shameful attempt to smear SINALTRAINAL as terrorists. This is welcome, but I would like to see you acknowledge how shabby and deceitful this was.------------
Are Sinn Fein the IRA? I fear yes they are. The reason i dropped that point is not because i was wrong -- i do believe that there is a link-- but because i am willing to admit there is no evidence for it. how can you refer to bin laden and affirm his guilt??? please tell me why you have chosen to be so hippocritical.
-------------Why do you say this allegation was false? On what grounds? The Latin American director who came to Ireland was the one who mentioned that the manager was on the run; he just didn't explain why, implying that he was fleeing from terrorist violence, not the law. We heard this from Luis Eduardo Garcia, the SINALTRAINAL activist. This can also be verified by checking killercoke.org----------
here we go again. you fail to tell me exactly what was said , like i asked. why are you dodging all this? have you something to hide?
Verified by a sinaltrainal member? killercoke.org? give us evidence- police warrants for his arrest etc. something that can support what this man has said. just because the man is from colombia doesn't mean we should all stand in awe and take everything he says as gospel.
-----------The same day that Isidro Gil was shot inside the plant, paramilitaries returned at the invitation of management. They handed out forms that had been prepared by managers, repudiating SINALTRAINAL, forcing the workers to sign them at gun-point. No security guard had to be threatened, the management were more than happy to collaborate. The happy result (for them) was a drastic fall in wages.-----------------
now this is getting ridiculous. just repeating a mantra that has no evidence behind it.
are you capable of reading at all? if you are then you would know that it is illegal under colombian law to reduce the wages of workers. where is your evidence to say that the paramiltaries were invited? please produce some! not a website full of allegations!
-------I have to produce "court documents" to prove this, do I? I'm afraid the Colombian legal system is so dodgy that there have been just a handful of convictions for the thousands of murders of union activists in the last 10-15 years.-------
yes you do have to produce court documents. you said that the case took place and there should be some eivdence to support that claim. you say that you heard it from one of the workers! don't you think that it might be a little biased? i think i'll trust the word of a judge rather than someone involved in it. how do you know that he wasn't lying?
again... no evidence.
---------I certainly will. The standards of proof that you demand are unattainable. What you seem to be saying is that until Coke are convicted in a court of law, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Well Osama Bin Laden hasn't been convicted for 9/11, but I wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt either. As I've said, the Colombian courts are not a viable option for SINALTRAINAL. The American courts MAY be an option; but the relevant legislation was not designed to help Colombian trade unionists prosecute US multinationals, and Coke's legal budget may fix the verdict anyway. In the meantime, people are threatened with death and there's no time to waste.------
so now you're comparing an accountable public company to a man who even the US can't find? again i ask ... are you serious?
unattainable standards? its only the basis of our legal system as we know it. only a fundamental right to be innocent until proven guilty. ARE YOU NOT HERE ADVOCATING HUMAN RIGHTS???? IS THIS NOT ONE OF THEM??????
--------no time to waste------ ah i see so its okay to presume guilt and cost the jobs of coke workers in ireland then is it??? ah sure you know.... who cares about fundamental rights! coke must be guilty! they are a multinational, and we all KNOW multinationals are evil in the way that they give jobs to economies that would otherwise be floundering. yea lets boycott them! (sarcasm of the highest order here)
-------here is not the slightest incentive in the world for them to lie, they have absolutely nothing to gain from doing so--------
no incentive? are you awake? there is a WAR going on there! Is winning it not a good enough incentive? they are anti-multinational. their incentive is the elimination of coca cola altogether.
------------------I notice there's been a change in tone from the deranged bombast of your earlier posts to cod-humility. Perhaps you might care to go one step further and show some actual humility, and apologise for getting involved in such an important issue for the sake of promoting your irrelevant political career.-----------------
apologise for what? defending fundamental principles such as innocent until proven guilty? which you seem not to care about because you KNOW that coke are guilty.
Apologise for thinking about the jobs of coke workers at home her in ireland???
I am afraid I will not.
PS> i'm getting sick of writing these ps's. why are you using insults? where are they going to get you? why are you so passionate about something you cant even prove? why label me as evil because i believe in this right and am thinking of coke workers in ireland?
Is it UCD SU policy to label opponents of the coke ban as being akin to a paedophiles?
this is a legitimate question, as an individual claiming to represent the UCD SU has stated that "Some people get excited by pictures of children being raped, others get excited by organising a political campaign against human rights: both are equally disgusting. "
In effect the UCD SU is stating that to oppose the coke ban is on the same level as getting a sexual kick out of watching children being raped.
A clear parrallel has been drawn
a swedish person might come to ireland and think it's warm, a jamaican person coming to ireland on the same day might think it's cold.
Perceptions are subjective. According to a certain perspective disregard for the welfare (their very lives) of an entire union of wokers might be equally as callous as the disregard for the welfare of an individual child or children.
just out of curiosity, lets just say Matt had heard testimony from a man who claims that a swimming coach has abused his children, and Matt has children being trained by that same coach. the coach has is in the process of being tried for the allegations made against him, but because of a point of law he is still allowed to coach schoolchildren at swimming.
Would Matt repeat his "innocent until proven guilty" mantra and continue to allow his children see this man, and if his children were assaulted in this time would he accept responsibility?
That is not a screwed up example btw, it is perfectly applicable to the colombian situation
----------Perceptions are subjective. According to a certain perspective disregard for the welfare (their very lives) of an entire union of wokers might be equally as callous as the disregard for the welfare of an individual child or children.--------------
you seem not to be able to get one thing into your head.
nobody is saying that people are not being killed.
the question is whether coca cola is responsible.
THere is a civil war going on there.
people have every reason to lie and make false accusations. especially those who are extreme left wing and anti capitalist.
--------just out of curiosity, lets just say Matt had heard testimony from a man who claims that a swimming coach has abused his children, and Matt has children being trained by that same coach. the coach has is in the process of being tried for the allegations made against him, but because of a point of law he is still allowed to coach schoolchildren at swimming.
Would Matt repeat his "innocent until proven guilty" mantra and continue to allow his children see this man, and if his children were assaulted in this time would he accept responsibility?
That is not a screwed up example btw, it is perfectly applicable to the colombian situation------------
yes i agree with you that this is not a screwed up example and to give you an answer
i would maintain innocent until proven guilty.. why?
because the crucial word is
ACCUSED
see that? strange word that? i wonder what it means? mmmmmmmm.
I would wait until the trial has been concluded.
there could equally be testimony to the opposite effect.
I would not give into such ridiculous tabloid style/vigilante/emotional reactions whic you are all showing and start prejuding something as serious as this. ( and in our real life case a murder case which is all the more serious.)
why do the other unions in columbia not suport this ban?
please answer this.
The Colombian congress of trade unions supports the Boycott.
They helped launch it.
For the congress to support something they need to have agreement from a large proportion of their membership (other unions)
Btw Matt, it's pretty disturbing the way you answered the above example. That you might leave your children in danger seems very irresponsible, even if the danger isn't 100% certain, you would bear the responsibility if they were harmed by that man before the end of the trial.
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION
just out of curiosity, lets just say Matt had heard testimony from a man who claims that a swimming coach has abused his children, and Matt has children being trained by that same coach. the coach has is in the process of being tried for the allegations made against him, but because of a point of law he is still allowed to coach schoolchildren at swimming.
Would Matt repeat his "innocent until proven guilty" mantra and continue to allow his children see this man, and if his children were assaulted in this time would he accept responsibility?
HYPOTHETICAL ANSWER
In actual fact, whilst the person coaching would still be innocent until proven guilty- he would most likely be suspended from this position with pay awaiting the outcome of a hearing.
Coca Cola have been hauled in front of courts in Latin America and Miami but nobody has seen fit to temporarily close it's bottling plants or send independant observers down to monitor behaviour, have they?
BUT BACK TO THE POINT....
Why has everyone gone silent after a learned individual cited the point that wages cannot be reduced in Columbia? Argument gone?!
Back to the point about a swimming coach alleged to be abusing children. This is totally not something anyone supporting the Coke Boycott can legitimately use as a defence.
If an individual was accused of being a paedophile then yes most people would probably take the precaution of staying away from said individual. Matt - think about it. However, the real point here is that the individuals who heard and believed this rumour would have no right to go around sticking up posters accusing this swimming coach of being a paedophile, attack his person or property etc.
In other words those who believe that Coke are guilty should personally boycott coca-cola products. They do not however have a right to go about branding the company as a killer in print on air or through websites such as this.
The contributors here keep making reference to their being proof to support their claims yet the only source they quote is the Killer Coke website - very unbiased source of credible information - I THINK NOT.
One last thing to the UCD contributors. A claim has been made that Amnesty International was involved in the UCD campaign. That is complete bullshit. The reality is a student in UCD who is also a member of Amnesty International went around UCD claiming to represent Amnesty. Anyone who doesnt believe me should call the Dublin office of Amnesty or log onto ANY amnesty site and try and find where Amnesty has expressed its support for this boycott.
PROOF PEOPLE
HA! are you really serious? an unaccountable, website full of nothing but allegations?
I notice that you are still dodging the question. Can you point me and others to exactly where we can find evidence of these allegations?
Don;t just sweep it off and say "ah well you can find the rest on other such websites..." find it for us!!!! Evidence please!!! your campaign has yet to produce it.
The killercoke website doesn't just make allegations, it offers reliable evidence to back up those allegations. For example, the article from September 2003 that I referred to cites a Colombian labour organisation that is used by the US State Department as a source for its human rights reports. You are clearly unwilling to read what is printed on the screen. It seems that the only reliable source for you is Coke itself. Funnily enough, Coke are themselves more willing to concede the truth of these allegations than you are. They are willing to admit, for example, that Isidro Gil was murdered inside the plant. They just claim to have been powerless to stop it - not a credible claim.
---------Well I see you didn't attempt to deal with my (if I may say so) rather irrefutable response to your shameful attempt to smear SINALTRAINAL as terrorists. This is welcome, but I would like to see you acknowledge how shabby and deceitful this was.------------
Are Sinn Fein the IRA? I fear yes they are. The reason i dropped that point is not because i was wrong -- i do believe that there is a link-- but because i am willing to admit there is no evidence for it. how can you refer to bin laden and affirm his guilt??? please tell me why you have chosen to be so hippocritical.
There is plenty of evidence to show that Sinn Fein is linked to the IRA. For starters, Sinn Fein supported the IRA's military campaign. SINALTRAINAL do not support Farc's campaign. You are trying to breathe life back into your pathetic, disgraceful attempts to smear SINALTRAINAL with terrorist associations. You are willing to admit there is no evidence for it? So on what grounds do you continue to make to allegation? Because SINALTRAINAL and Farc nominally share some political objectives (land reform, labour rights, wealth redistribution)? As I pointed out, by the same logic it could be shown that Amnesty International and the SDLP are linked with the INLA, because they both attack the RUC and the British army for human rights abuse.
Again, your hippocrisy (ahem) is breathtaking. Having accused us of making allegations with no evidence to back it up, you then, in the next paragraph, make an allegation AND ADMIT YOURSELF THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT! Jesus christ that takes the fucking biscuit matt!
What you are saying, in effect, is that anyone who criticises US companies in Colombia is a terrorist, or an ally of terrorist. Your loathing of democracy is truly exposed.
-------------Why do you say this allegation was false? On what grounds? The Latin American director who came to Ireland was the one who mentioned that the manager was on the run; he just didn't explain why, implying that he was fleeing from terrorist violence, not the law. We heard this from Luis Eduardo Garcia, the SINALTRAINAL activist. This can also be verified by checking killercoke.org----------
here we go again. you fail to tell me exactly what was said , like i asked. why are you dodging all this? have you something to hide?
You cretin, I repeated for the second (or possibly the third) time EXACTLY what was said on the radio. Again you re unwilling to read what is on the page.
Verified by a sinaltrainal member? killercoke.org? give us evidence- police warrants for his arrest etc. something that can support what this man has said. just because the man is from colombia doesn't mean we should all stand in awe and take everything he says as gospel.
I have to say, I do stand in awe of Luis. I saw the way his voice quavered with emotion when he told us that his family had already been threatened by paramilitaries. I have nothing but respect for someone who can show such bravery in pursuit of his political beliefs. A little respect is very much in order, you insolent little twerp.
-----------The same day that Isidro Gil was shot inside the plant, paramilitaries returned at the invitation of management. They handed out forms that had been prepared by managers, repudiating SINALTRAINAL, forcing the workers to sign them at gun-point. No security guard had to be threatened, the management were more than happy to collaborate. The happy result (for them) was a drastic fall in wages.-----------------
now this is getting ridiculous. just repeating a mantra that has no evidence behind it.
are you capable of reading at all? if you are then you would know that it is illegal under colombian law to reduce the wages of workers. where is your evidence to say that the paramiltaries were invited? please produce some! not a website full of allegations!
It is also illegal under Colombian law to kill trade union leaders (or any civilian, for that matter). Yet it happens. The reality is, there WAS a drastic fall in wages at that plant (from $280 a month to $130, if I recall correctly).
you say that you heard it from one of the workers! don't you think that it might be a little biased? i think i'll trust the word of a judge rather than someone involved in it. how do you know that he wasn't lying?
again... no evidence.
Well I think I'll trust the word of the worker. I suppose he might be a little biased - nothing prejudices you against someone quite like seeing your children threatened by thugs. Luis, and anyone else from SINALTRAINAL, has absolutely no incentive to lie.
The standards of proof that you demand are unattainable. What you seem to be saying is that until Coke are convicted in a court of law, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. As I've said, the Colombian courts are not a viable option for SINALTRAINAL. The American courts MAY be an option; but the relevant legislation was not designed to help Colombian trade unionists prosecute US multinationals, and Coke's legal budget may fix the verdict anyway. In the meantime, people are threatened with death and there's no time to waste.------
unattainable standards? its only the basis of our legal system as we know it. only a fundamental right to be innocent until proven guilty. ARE YOU NOT HERE ADVOCATING HUMAN RIGHTS???? IS THIS NOT ONE OF THEM??????
As I've said many times, IF there was a fair justice system in Colombia we could put our faith in that. But we can't. I presume you would say that Ireland should have done business with Saddam Hussein, because he was never convicted in a court of gassing the Kurds. I'm not saying, by the way, that Coke are as bad as Saddam; just pointing out that your pedantic attitude will lead to flagrant immorality if put into practice. If we were proposing to put Coke's executives in prison, we would certainly require a legal verdict. What we are saying is that people should refuse to buy Coke - a much less weighty matter, requiring a lower burden of proof.
-------here is not the slightest incentive in the world for them to lie, they have absolutely nothing to gain from doing so--------
no incentive? are you awake? there is a WAR going on there! Is winning it not a good enough incentive? they are anti-multinational. their incentive is the elimination of coca cola altogether.
EXPLAIN, MATT, what SINALTRAINAL and its members have to gain from the elimination of coca cola. They rely on the Coke plants for employment.
LISTEN, MATT, to what SINALTRAINAL are demanding: not that Coke withdraw from their country (never mind disband altogether), but that Coke sit down with an international arbitration committee to examine the situation, leading to an end to the anti-union campaign, and restitution for the families of murdered activists.
I suppose it's easier for you to pretend that you are dealing with a gang of totalitarian fanatics bent on eliminating civilisation as we know it, not a bunch of ordinary human beings who want basic justice. But don't pretend that your view has any basis in reality.
apologise for what?
To begin with, apologise for your shameful attempt to smear SINALTRAINAL as terrorists WHEN YOU ADMIT YOURSELF THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER (so much for innocent until proven guilty, eh?).
BTW someone demanded to know why I was referring to Amnesty. I don't know where the relevant Amnesty reports can be accessed on the Net. I heard about Amnesty's take on Colombia from two sources, the chair of Amnesty in UCD, who helped run the boycott campaign, and a friend's mother who used to be the directory of Irish Amnesty; they both assured me that Amnesty backed up what was being said by SINALTRAINAL, and I take their word for it.
Nobody has ever claimed (including Ray, the activist you mention) that Amnesty has a policy of supporting the boycott. Amnesty does not adopt positions like that. But Amnesty does confirm many of the allegations against Coke made by trade unionists in Colombia, while leaving open the question of whether a boycott is the best way to stop that.
=================----------The Colombian congress of trade unions supports the Boycott.
They helped launch it.
For the congress to support something they need to have agreement from a large proportion of their membership (other unions)================
thats not an answer to my question. you know full well that there is any number of reasons why the congress passed that. flooding the congress with all their members etc. look at the GAA and how they voted on allowing soccer to be played in croke park-- a lot of the members were gone to the toilet wehn it happened.
if the other uunions felt strongly about it they would have passed it IN THEIR OWN CONFERENCES! why did they not do that??????????????
now what i descibed above could happen regarding against the ban, but 10 times? i think not.
================================Btw Matt, it's pretty disturbing the way you answered the above example. That you might leave your children in danger seems very irresponsible, even if the danger isn't 100% certain, you would bear the responsibility if they were harmed by that man before the end of the trial.-------------======================================================
okay, i'm going to use an example that i probably have used further up but the moral of the story doesn't seem to be sinking in.
suppose you are a pub owner. accused of child molesting.
people boycott your pub.
in fact in reality they dont just do that they treat you like an outcast. you lose your friends, possibly your family, but most of all your living. your business go bankrupt.
now,
if you are then proven innocent, ( and are innocent) how do you think that the people are going to feel who boycotted your pub?
oh"btw this not a fucked up example... it is perfectly applicable to the colombian situtation"
========================================The killercoke website doesn't just make allegations, it offers reliable evidence to back up those allegations. For example, the article from September 2003 that I referred to cites a Colombian labour organisation that is used by the US State Department as a source for its human rights reports===========================
oh i really hoep you're reading this one DAN!
i actually looked up your refernce.
http://www.killercoke.org/pdf/cokeresponsefinal.pdf on page 3
it says "active support of... colombia's national labour school, which the United states state department relies upon for data about colombian matters"
where does it say here that they have evidence for it? where does it give the evidence.
no i am open to correction but as far as i read thats allit says about that organisation.
so i'd say you're caught out my friend!!!!!!!!
==============================Funnily enough, Coke are themselves more willing to concede the truth of these allegations than you are. They are willing to admit, for example, that Isidro Gil was murdered inside the plant.====================
i never said he wasn;t murdered inside the plant. i said he was shot just inside the gates. which is.. inside the plant.
===============You cretin, I repeated for the second (or possibly the third) time EXACTLY what was said on the radio. Again you re unwilling to read what is on the page.
"Even Coke themselves wouldn't deny that one of their managers invited paramilitaries
into his plant to threaten his workers; their Latin American spokesman who appeared
on Pat Kenny with Gearoid admitted that this was true, but said "he's no longer
a manager". "
"the Latin American director who came to Ireland was the one who mentioned that
the manager was on the run;=================
so he actually said that the managers invited them in?
are you willing to put that on the record before i verify it for all to see how you lied.
i will give you one chance to take it back... because i know that he said nothing about the mnagers threatening workers.
==========================It is also illegal under Colombian law to kill trade union leaders (or any civilian, for that matter). Yet it happens. The reality is, there WAS a drastic fall in wages at that plant (from $280 a month to $130, if I recall correctly).==============
If you recall? recall from where exactly? indy media? ha!
this is rich.
you cannot produce ANY EVIDENCE for me yet again. why don't you just give up?
===========================Well I think I'll trust the word of the worker. I suppose he might be a little biased - nothing prejudices you against someone quite like seeing your children threatened by thugs. Luis, and anyone else from SINALTRAINAL, has absolutely no incentive to lie.============================
noincentive to lie? higher wages? perhaps he was threatened?? it is a civil war zone in case you haven't noticed. and he has yet to prove that coca cola was responsible for these actions. i'm not saying that he wasn't threatened just that nothing has been proved to say that coca cola are responsible.
===========================What we are saying is that people should refuse to buy Coke - a much less weighty matter, requiring a lower burden of proof.======================
oh yea, they can refuse to buy it alright but not at the cost of those who do want to buy it? why not a personal boycott.?
==================================As I've said many times, IF there was a fair justice system in Colombia we could put our faith in that. But we can't. I presume you would say that Ireland should have done business with Saddam Hussein,===========================
there is just no comparing the two. colombia not a fair justice system? why so? im open and interested to know. do they not have due process? do they not presume innocence?
ps. the saddam regime would openly admit to gassing the kurds. there was a plethora of evidence.. video etc also. this situation is totally diferent. you have testimony of a few extremly biased individuals AND testimony to the contrary.
It's interesting that you seem to have such a close connection with Saddam that you know what he would do.
Saddam might not admit to gassing the kurds and it could be very difficult to prove that he personally gave the direct order or that it happened with his knowledge under his authority. This is because the burden of legal proof is so high.
It does not mean he is innocent.
And your example about the publican being accused.
1. If the person putting up the posters knew that the publican was a child molester, lets say he saw him doing it or he was told by his daughter that she had been assaulted, he should go to the courts or confront the individual involved, but if the courts were not available to him, and the individual could not satisfactorally convince you of his innocence, It would be absolutely the right thing for him to do whatever he could to protect other children and this might include putting up posters.
If the person putting up the posters was a schoolteacher who had been told by several children or had seen the publican threaten the children with abuse then you would have a lot more credbility in public.
2. If you saw posters alleging that a publican was a child molester and you didn't know for sure whether it was true or false, then it is your duty as a parent to protect your children by keeping them away from him. It is also your duty to try to find out more about the situation, talk to the police the man who was putting up the posters and the publican to see what was really happening.
3. If you are being accused of molesting childrens dn you are innocent then it would be a horrible situation to be put in and you would do whatever you could to clear your name. You would go to the courts and you would certainly not be satisfied with a ruling that you are innocent based on a technicality.
so he actually said that the managers invited them in?
are you willing to put that on the record before i verify it for all to see how you lied.
i will give you one chance to take it back...
Gearoid said that a manager had invited paramilitaries in to threaten his workers. The Coke guy didn't deny this, he just said "he's no longer a manager". Of course he didn't bring up the fact that one of his managers collaborated with paramilitaries himself, he's not an idiot...
==========================It is also illegal under Colombian law to kill trade union leaders (or any civilian, for that matter). Yet it happens. The reality is, there WAS a drastic fall in wages at that plant (from $280 a month to $130, if I recall correctly).==============
If you recall? recall from where exactly? indy media? ha!
this is rich.
you cannot produce ANY EVIDENCE for me yet again. why don't you just give up?
I fear that I cannot produce "any evidence" that will satisfy you, since every time I give evidence you flatly deny it on no reasonable grounds. Nevertheless, this is what happened. I suppose if you dug up Coke's wage bill from the mid 90s you could corroborate it. As a man so dedicated to discovering the truth, I'm sure you'll now rush to do this, Matt.
===========================Well I think I'll trust the word of the worker. I suppose he might be a little biased - nothing prejudices you against someone quite like seeing your children threatened by thugs. Luis, and anyone else from SINALTRAINAL, has absolutely no incentive to lie.============================
noincentive to lie? higher wages? perhaps he was threatened?? it is a civil war zone in case you haven't noticed.
So his "incentive to lie" is higher wages. It's funny that you see the desire for higher wages as one of the seven deadly sins. Again, you are trying to convince us that the whole campaign, with all the sweat and danger and effort that SINALTRAINAL have put into it, is driven soley by a cynical desire to get some money off Coke. I hate to disillusion you, but not everyone is quite as shabby as you in this world.
there is just no comparing the two. colombia not a fair justice system? why so? im open and interested to know. do they not have due process? do they not presume innocence?
It's not a fair justice system because it has totally failed to protect union activists (and other civilians) from paramilitary killings, there have been thousands of killings in the last decade with just a handful of convictions.
I see you're quietly dropping the "terrorist" smear that was such an important part of your case earlier. If you can't justify this disgraceful claim, at least have to decency to admit you were wrong.
=====================================================It's interesting that you seem to have such a close connection with Saddam that you know what he would do.
Saddam might not admit to gassing the kurds and it could be very difficult to prove that he personally gave the direct order or that it happened with his knowledge under his authority. This is because the burden of legal proof is so high.======================================
no one said that he gave the direct order. whatever the case may be. you cannot compare coca cola and saddam.
why?
because there is a civil war in colombia which coca cola have no part of.
Saddam was not mixed up in any battles that he didn;t cause himself.
anyway he is going to be tried.
i didn't agree with the war myself. so i will reserve judgment til then.
======================================================. If the person putting up the posters knew that the publican was a child molester, lets say he saw him doing it or he was told by his daughter that she had been assaulted, he should go to the courts or confront the individual involved, but if the courts were not available to him, and the individual could not satisfactorally convince you of his innocence=======================================================
the example in my case is that the pub owner is innocent.
dealing with what you are saying though.... what you are doing is undermining the very principle our justice system is based on.
i find that personally DISGUSTING.
you have no respect fo r th rule of law. the person putting up posters KNEW?! what about alternative motives? perhaps the guy ticked him off.
and the daughter... many a time have false accusations ( even child molestation ones!) been made. thats why we HAVE A COURT SYSTEM!
you're contempt for due process is dispicable.
in our own case there are far more reasons why people would make false accusations than in my example. ( political agendas etc.)
=====================================================2. If you saw posters alleging that a publican was a child molester and you didn't know for sure whether it was true or false, then it is your duty as a parent to protect your children by keeping them away from him.===============================================
NO... it is your DUTY to trust the rule of law.
think about it the other way around. WHAT IF YOU WERE THE PUB OWNER and you were INNOCENT!
this is why we have this principle... to PROTECT the innocent.
=======================================================3. If you are being accused of molesting childrens dn you are innocent then it would be a horrible situation to be put in and you would do whatever you could to clear your name. You would go to the courts and you would certainly not be satisfied with a ruling that you are innocent based on a technicality.======================================================
killercoke.net and killercoke.com
enough said.
=========================================================================
==Gearoid said that a manager had invited paramilitaries in to threaten his workers. The Coke guy didn't deny this, he just said "he's no longer a manager". Of course he didn't bring up the fact that one of his managers collaborated with paramilitaries himself, he's not an idiot...==========================================================================
oh .... well... i'm sorry, ..... if his holiness Gearoid said it then it MUST be true.
the guy didn't deny this---- well that means its true?
i'm sorry? please explain? your logic is impeccable my son. (sarcasm)
so now we have gone from him saying it to him "not denying it"
you are unbelievable! perhaps he was not informed as to the full situation so that he could neither confirm nor deny? EVER THOUGHT OF THAT?
that is a tactic that you're campaign have used again and again and it is quite frankly Low. throwing shit at the wall until enough of it will stick.
coke have denied it in the meantime by the way. in case you were wondering..... www.yfgmaynooth.com
=======================================================================fear that I cannot produce "any evidence" that will satisfy you, since every time I give evidence you flatly deny it on no reasonable grounds. Nevertheless, this is what happened. I suppose if you dug up Coke's wage bill from the mid 90s you could corroborate it. As a man so dedicated to discovering the truth, I'm sure you'll now rush to do this, Matt.==============================================================
FLATLY DENY YOUR EVIDENCE???? WHAT EVIDENCE?????????????
you haven;t given any you incredibly intelligent man you.
the burden of proof rests on you. not me. therefore You are the one who should look up the wage bill and NOT ME.
==============================================================with all the sweat and danger and effort that SINALTRAINAL have put into it, is driven soley by a cynical desire to get some money off Co=================================================
when did i say solely???
===========================================================================It's not a fair justice system because it has totally failed to protect union activists (and other civilians) from paramilitary killings, there have been thousands of killings in the last decade with just a handful of convictions.
===============================================================
so its that fault of the justice system that there was no evidence then by the plaintiffs to proove guilt?
perhaps it is hard to convict? if coke are going around intimidating SO many workers then you would have at least one conviction?
has there been convictions for all the soldiers killed in WWII? no... but ther have been the Nurembourg trials.. which in our case would be coca cola... and nothing has been proved.
====================================================================
I see you're quietly dropping the "terrorist" smear that was such an important part of your case earlier. If you can't justify this disgraceful claim, at least have to decency to admit you were wrong.=======================================================================
no i'm not "quietly" dropping anything.... I still believe it... but the crucial difference between you and me is that i'm not willing to sacrifice the jobs of coca cola workers to do it. i stand by the rule of law. due process. and it is not an important part of our case. our important points are innocent til proven guilty, freedom of choice and jobs.
finally i have a few questions.....
do you have a conscience? because i can't see how you do if you're willing to put coca cola workers out of work over something you have not been fully informed on.
tell me.... how are you going to look a coke worker in the face and tell them that you are responsible for their job loss if coke are proved innocent?
i'm really looking forward to your answer....
have you been to colombia DAN?
P.S.. you are now dropping to the new low that i saw gearoid drop to in another one of these threads.... remarking on stupid little things like how many exclaimation marks i have. it is a true sign of desperation.
I am sick and tired of hearing the same arguments over and over again, back and forth
I'm also sick of people fllinging verbal insults at other people; jeez grow up will ye?
I know how the media can be manipulated because I study it in college, for my degree in Media Studies. What the pro-ban groups are trying to do is use 'operant conditioning' (B.F. Skinner anyone?) to associate Coke with the deaths in colombia, by telling people all the time that they are responsible, without any consideration for the truth, or fairness, or justice.. It's cynical, it's insulting to ordinary people because it assumes that people are passive sheep rather than individuals, and it's in very bad taste.
There's lots of claims about 'facts' but all I see is propaganda, killercoke.org is biased, as is Sinaltrainal, Coca Cola and just about every party involved in the dispute. About the only facts I can find among the propaganda are that Coke Cola workers have been killed. We don't know who killed them, or why. But because one of the killings happened in a Coke bottling plant, Coca Cola 'must ' be guilty.
This is nothing more than anti-globalisation propaganda; And I do know all about Globalisation, both the arguments for and against, so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. It's all very well and good to be against the 'homogenisation' of society, but don't resort to tactics that would better serve North Korea or Nazi Germany.
Now, at this stage, I no longer care whether Coke is banned or not, because for the last six months I've had to listen again and again to a bunch of immature fools hurl abuse at each other, instead of discussing it sensibly like adults ought to do.
One final point... instead of getting all worked up on Coke, why not campaign to increase third level grants instead... god knows it's hard enough to afford college...
*goes off mumbling in disgust*
So you decry "verbal insults and yet you title your comment:
"Oh ffs will ye all just shut up!"
I assume ffs means "for fuck's sake"? You may not be aware of it but you managed to get two insults in there. The more interesting one is that you tell people having a discussion to "shut up". Why? You don't have to read it. It's not like they're a pro-discussion death squad that will come and shoot you and kidnap your children if you don't read it.
trekkypj then wrote: "What the pro-ban groups are trying to do is use 'operant conditioning' (B.F. Skinner anyone?) to associate Coke with the deaths in colombia, by telling people all the time that they are responsible, without any consideration for the truth, or fairness, or justice."
The Coca-Cola Company profits from the activities of their subsidiary bottlers in Colombia. The management in those plants has done it's best to smash the unions. It has done effectively _nothing_ to protect the union members and organisers from the death squads. Those death-squads are kidnapping, torturing and murdering union members and their families. Coincidence? Yeah right!
It would be easy for The Coca-Cola Company to issue the clearest possible statement to it's subisdiaries that they must protect and support unions in their workplaces or else they no longer may operate as bottlers of Coca-Cola. They haven't because they prefer money to "truth, or fairness, or justice". Profits are what they care about and so a boycott is what will make them do the right thing.
Trekkypj then wrote: "There's lots of claims about 'facts' but all I see is propaganda, killercoke.org is biased, as is Sinaltrainal, Coca Cola and just about every party involved in the dispute."
Detail specific claims, show how you know specifically that they are untrue or biased. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air and it's about as convincing as a FG election promise.
Trekkypj then wrote "This is nothing more than anti-globalisation propaganda; And I do know all about Globalisation, both the arguments for and against, so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. It's all very well and good to be against the 'homogenisation' of society, but don't resort to tactics that would better serve North Korea or Nazi Germany."
1) Who are these people that are against "homogenisation"? If you "know all about Globalisation, both the arguments for and against" then you must know that this is a mischaracterisation.
2) N.Korea _and_ Nazi Germany! You forgot satanic child-abuse covens, foreign anarchists, Jews and Al Qaeda. I'd suggest that happily ignoring the death of people organising for better working conditions by semi-secret anti-socialist death squads would be behaviour appropriate to an "operant conditioned sheep-like" denizen of Nazi Germany.
Trekkypj then goes on to cement the impression that s/he is incapable of rational discussion by stating" "Now, at this stage, I no longer care whether Coke is banned or not, because for the last six months I've had to listen"
Right. Your unquenchable passion for "truth, justice and fairness" has been tragically snuffed out in its prime because you were "made to listen".
To cap it off Trekkypj writes: "again and again to a bunch of immature fools hurl abuse at each other, instead of discussing it sensibly like adults ought to do."
Thanks for the good example.
And finally Trekkypj writes: "One final point... instead of getting all worked up on Coke, why not campaign to increase third level grants instead... god knows it's hard enough to afford college..."
Well, why don't you do it? I'll bet your years of training in the cunning black arts of "Meedya Studies" would allow you to bend the politicians around your finger. A bit of operant conditioning and sure you could just cut to the chase and do it yourself. It's flattering that you'd appeal to other people to do it, but I get the impression that you don't really need help.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Coca-Cola Company profits from the activities of their subsidiary bottlers in Colombia. The management in those plants has done it's best to smash the unions. It has done effectively _nothing_ to protect the union members and organisers from the death squads. Those death-squads are kidnapping, torturing and murdering union members and their families. Coincidence? Yeah right!---------------------------------------------------------
Your own campaign are the ones who brought up the point that Coca Cola founded some of the Unions themselves.
Why would they create unions only to destroy them? Surely they wouldn't create them in the first place if they didn't want unions?
Why is it only one union that supports this ban in colombia. What are all the others doing? do they not care? or do they see through this whole smear campaign? I think the latter is true.
==========================================================Detail specific claims, show how you know specifically that they are untrue or biased. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air and it's about as convincing as a FG election promise.========================================
aha my friend here's where you're wrong.
Its up to YOU to prove that they are right. Like it or Lump it thats the way the system works. If you want to see specific claims defended go to yfgmaynooth.com. We were the only ones who bothered to contact coca cola about these claims. did you? no, i think not. they said that they they were not contacted once about these claims. Your campaign has been levelling one accusation after another without providing credible evidence.