Comments for iCaspar http://icaspar.net Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:11:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on All You Need to Know about Climate Change in 26 Seconds by Mimi Cagle http://icaspar.net/nasa-climate-change-2011/#comment-126 Mimi Cagle Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:11:33 +0000 http://fairtradefamily.net/?p=445#comment-126 Heartbreaking. Heartbreaking.

]]> Comment on Victoria’s Dirty Secret by Caspar http://icaspar.net/victorias-dirty-secret/#comment-125 Caspar Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:16:05 +0000 http://icaspar.net/?p=1871#comment-125 Again, Mr. Zelmer, my thanks for this conversation, for your alternative reading of Fairtrade's initial response, and for the link to the Textile Exchange's response. Caspar Again, Mr. Zelmer, my thanks for this conversation, for your alternative reading of Fairtrade’s initial response, and for the link to the Textile Exchange’s response.
Caspar

]]> Comment on Victoria’s Dirty Secret by Michael Zelmer http://icaspar.net/victorias-dirty-secret/#comment-124 Michael Zelmer Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:39:58 +0000 http://icaspar.net/?p=1871#comment-124 And thank you for your attention to the story, Caspar. I have a different read of the original response from Fairtrade International, actually. It provides details about when Fairtrade International heard, what it was doing about it, provided information about the producer group and the region, raised initial questions about whether or not any abuses occurred on farms actually within the system, directly contradicted a central claim made by Simpson that "paying more means more child labour". As a bit of context, as soon as there's an allegation of child labour within the Fairtrade system, the first priority is ensuring the protection of any at-risk children and, as part of that, getting a clear handle on the situation. Had Mr. Simpson provided enough advanced notice to allow a complete investigation before publishing, then certainly you would have seen a much more direct initial response (though, in this case, the story likely wouldn't have been published). If any children had actually been found to be at-risk, then their protection would have been assured prior to any additional risk from the increased attention. But he didn't, and it certainly would have been irresponsible on Fairtrade International's part to categorically deny the accusations until it was clear they were false. As I mentioned earlier, child labour or any other violation of our standards is always possible. What Fairtrade certification does is create conditions that mitigate the likelihood of these violations occurring, while operating a monitoring system to catch them when they do and then rectifying the situation. In any case, I encourage you to continue to draw attention to these issues as they come up, both the positive and the negative, because they're crucial to the continual improvement of the Fairtrade system. Maybe just hold off on any definitive judgments until all the facts are in, investigations completed, etc. To that end, you may be interested in how Textile Exchange handled the story in mid-December: http://info.textileexchange.org/blog/bid/111789/ Thanks again, Michael And thank you for your attention to the story, Caspar.

I have a different read of the original response from Fairtrade International, actually. It provides details about when Fairtrade International heard, what it was doing about it, provided information about the producer group and the region, raised initial questions about whether or not any abuses occurred on farms actually within the system, directly contradicted a central claim made by Simpson that “paying more means more child labour”.

As a bit of context, as soon as there’s an allegation of child labour within the Fairtrade system, the first priority is ensuring the protection of any at-risk children and, as part of that, getting a clear handle on the situation.

Had Mr. Simpson provided enough advanced notice to allow a complete investigation before publishing, then certainly you would have seen a much more direct initial response (though, in this case, the story likely wouldn’t have been published). If any children had actually been found to be at-risk, then their protection would have been assured prior to any additional risk from the increased attention.

But he didn’t, and it certainly would have been irresponsible on Fairtrade International’s part to categorically deny the accusations until it was clear they were false. As I mentioned earlier, child labour or any other violation of our standards is always possible. What Fairtrade certification does is create conditions that mitigate the likelihood of these violations occurring, while operating a monitoring system to catch them when they do and then rectifying the situation.

In any case, I encourage you to continue to draw attention to these issues as they come up, both the positive and the negative, because they’re crucial to the continual improvement of the Fairtrade system. Maybe just hold off on any definitive judgments until all the facts are in, investigations completed, etc. To that end, you may be interested in how Textile Exchange handled the story in mid-December: http://info.textileexchange.org/blog/bid/111789/

Thanks again,
Michael

]]> Comment on Victoria’s Dirty Secret by Caspar http://icaspar.net/victorias-dirty-secret/#comment-123 Caspar Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:39:52 +0000 http://icaspar.net/?p=1871#comment-123 Thank you very much, Mr. Zelmer, for your response. I've posted a <a href="http://icaspar.net/fairtrade-response/" rel="nofollow">follow up</a> to this post concerning Fairtrade's response released today. And, yes, there are significant findings at odds with the Bloomberg article, as well as indications that the Bloomberg reporter, Cam Simpson, who wrote the article used questionable (at best) or even unethical methods to obtain the story. As to throwing Fairtrade under the bus, the public ordinarily assumes with a news major organization like Bloomberg and award-winning journalists like Mr. Simpson, that with the publication of such an article the facts have been adequately checked. Such was the assumption here. I'd guess that the people at Victoria's Secret are harboring some of the same misgivings about Bloomberg, considering the calls for a boycott of VS as a result of the same article. There's no question that the Bloomberg article was damaging, and that the resulting opinions (including my own) have added fuel to the fire. That said, the original Fairtrade response (linked in the post, above) could have been much stronger, provisionally refuting Bloomberg's claims rather than saying essentially, "We are concerned and we're looking into it." I would suggest that Fairtrade's best response is to take the opportunity of having the press's attention to make very public the extent and thoroughness of its ongoing measures (whatever those may be) to prevent the kind of fabricated story described in the Bloomberg article from unfolding in reality. If Fairtrade can effectively do that, this incident could actually become an occasion to solidify the fair trade movement at a moment when it seems, with the disagreements over standards leading to the divorce of Fairtrade USA from the rest of Fairtrade, to be fracturing. Again, my sincere thanks for your comment. Caspar Thank you very much, Mr. Zelmer, for your response. I’ve posted a follow up to this post concerning Fairtrade’s response released today. And, yes, there are significant findings at odds with the Bloomberg article, as well as indications that the Bloomberg reporter, Cam Simpson, who wrote the article used questionable (at best) or even unethical methods to obtain the story. As to throwing Fairtrade under the bus, the public ordinarily assumes with a news major organization like Bloomberg and award-winning journalists like Mr. Simpson, that with the publication of such an article the facts have been adequately checked. Such was the assumption here. I’d guess that the people at Victoria’s Secret are harboring some of the same misgivings about Bloomberg, considering the calls for a boycott of VS as a result of the same article.
There’s no question that the Bloomberg article was damaging, and that the resulting opinions (including my own) have added fuel to the fire.
That said, the original Fairtrade response (linked in the post, above) could have been much stronger, provisionally refuting Bloomberg’s claims rather than saying essentially, “We are concerned and we’re looking into it.” I would suggest that Fairtrade’s best response is to take the opportunity of having the press’s attention to make very public the extent and thoroughness of its ongoing measures (whatever those may be) to prevent the kind of fabricated story described in the Bloomberg article from unfolding in reality. If Fairtrade can effectively do that, this incident could actually become an occasion to solidify the fair trade movement at a moment when it seems, with the disagreements over standards leading to the divorce of Fairtrade USA from the rest of Fairtrade, to be fracturing.
Again, my sincere thanks for your comment.
Caspar

]]> Comment on Victoria’s Dirty Secret by Michael Zelmer http://icaspar.net/victorias-dirty-secret/#comment-122 Michael Zelmer Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:47:00 +0000 http://icaspar.net/?p=1871#comment-122 Following its own investigation of the claims made by Bloomberg, Fairtrade International released its response today. It can be found on the front page of www.fairtrade.net (or directly at www.bit.ly/FIBlmbgResp). In particular, it refutes the claims that the person featured in the articles was involved in cotton production at all (Fairtrade certified or otherwise) and that she was under the age of 18. It also raises serious concerns regarding the journalist's methods. While you're right to point out that Fairtrade certification has a responsibility to the public trust, throwing it under the bus before all of the facts are in does considerable damage. This is particularly true when it relates to something as sensitive as child labour and when allegations are thrown around as much as these have been. Nevertheless, it should be noted that no system can guarantee that a product is 100% child labour free. However, the Fairtrade system has standards against it, an audit-based monitoring system to catch it if it occurs, and clear protocols on what to do if it does that focus first on the safety of any at-risk children and second on mitigating the risk of it happening again. Michael Zelmer Fairtrade Canada Following its own investigation of the claims made by Bloomberg, Fairtrade International released its response today.

It can be found on the front page of http://www.fairtrade.net (or directly at http://www.bit.ly/FIBlmbgResp). In particular, it refutes the claims that the person featured in the articles was involved in cotton production at all (Fairtrade certified or otherwise) and that she was under the age of 18. It also raises serious concerns regarding the journalist’s methods.

While you’re right to point out that Fairtrade certification has a responsibility to the public trust, throwing it under the bus before all of the facts are in does considerable damage. This is particularly true when it relates to something as sensitive as child labour and when allegations are thrown around as much as these have been.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that no system can guarantee that a product is 100% child labour free. However, the Fairtrade system has standards against it, an audit-based monitoring system to catch it if it occurs, and clear protocols on what to do if it does that focus first on the safety of any at-risk children and second on mitigating the risk of it happening again.

Michael Zelmer
Fairtrade Canada

]]> Comment on (Re)Introducing iCaspar by Caspar http://icaspar.net/intro/#comment-121 Caspar Tue, 03 Jan 2012 04:37:47 +0000 http://icaspar.net/?p=1846#comment-121 Thanks for your thoughts. I'll accept "providential" as a suitable alternative. And, yes, it's important to keep in touch with others who have been doing this work for years, to learn from their experience, to be inspired by their faithfulness to the causes they represent, and to keep from being isolated. As for the new take on the starfish parable, I agree that it's necessary to pay attention to both the systemic issues as well as the immediate crises that are the symptoms of the system. Helping and supporting people working on both of these angles is what I hope this new incarnation of iCaspar can be about. Thanks for your thoughts. I’ll accept “providential” as a suitable alternative.
And, yes, it’s important to keep in touch with others who have been doing this work for years, to learn from their experience, to be inspired by their faithfulness to the causes they represent, and to keep from being isolated.
As for the new take on the starfish parable, I agree that it’s necessary to pay attention to both the systemic issues as well as the immediate crises that are the symptoms of the system. Helping and supporting people working on both of these angles is what I hope this new incarnation of iCaspar can be about.

]]> Comment on (Re)Introducing iCaspar by Brooke http://icaspar.net/intro/#comment-120 Brooke Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:51:28 +0000 http://icaspar.net/?p=1846#comment-120 I think social justice activism is a God-thing. Instead of labeling your activism "accidental," I would call it "providential." I was blessed yesterday to see some of my activist friends in an "Occupy Albany" video (Joe Lombardo, Ed Block, Doug Bullock). They are anything but the "dirty hippies" that FOX media would like us to believe they are. They are all three white-haired gentlemen with decades of principled resistance to evil under their belts. I pray that I may have even a tenth of their righteous energy and endurance. I also read a short article yesterday that makes the point nicely: we need to move beyond the mentality of saving one starfish at a time to eliminating the systemic evils that keep beaching starfish after starfish after starfish. (http://www.care2.com/causes/beyond-the-starfish-creating-systemic-lasting-change-in-the-new-year.html). I think social justice activism is a God-thing. Instead of labeling your activism “accidental,” I would call it “providential.” I was blessed yesterday to see some of my activist friends in an “Occupy Albany” video (Joe Lombardo, Ed Block, Doug Bullock). They are anything but the “dirty hippies” that FOX media would like us to believe they are. They are all three white-haired gentlemen with decades of principled resistance to evil under their belts. I pray that I may have even a tenth of their righteous energy and endurance.
I also read a short article yesterday that makes the point nicely: we need to move beyond the mentality of saving one starfish at a time to eliminating the systemic evils that keep beaching starfish after starfish after starfish. (http://www.care2.com/causes/beyond-the-starfish-creating-systemic-lasting-change-in-the-new-year.html).

]]>