The SPEAK Blog
What happened next: In dialogue with Shell
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
At the end of February, SPEAK's Day of Action 2012 featured a demonstration outside Shell's London Headquarters in Waterloo to draw attention to the company's so far unmet responsibility to clean up extensive oil pollution in the Niger Delta. In response to our letter and petition handed in that day to CEO Peter Voser, we were invited back to meet with a company representative in order to discuss some of the issues we raised. Consequently, on Friday 20th April, Andy Cope (campaigns officer) and Mark Johnson (campaigns petal leader) took up an invitation to meet Barnaby Briggs, Strategic Relations Manager for Shell International. Some of Andy's personal reflections on the are meeting here:
- On the day we arrived a bit early and decided to pop into St John's Waterloo nearby to pray before the meeting. This felt really special - a symbolic connection with the original Day of Action so many of us participated in almost two months previous. (SPEAKers had begun that morning with a service at the same church).
- Located just behind the London Eye and opposite the Houses of Parliament, the view from the Shell Centre 23 stories up is quite something!
- Barnaby Briggs is a really interesting guy. He's also spent some time working for the RSPB, and now as part of his job goes out to visit Nigeria on a regular basis. We spent a lot of time listening to his side of the story - his frustrations with government corruption and inaction, his marvel at the complexity and diversity of the country, and his take on what are effective ways to improve the situation there.
- A lot of previous resources SPEAK has used around this particular issue within our Corporate Responsibility campaign have drawn research from the dedicated work of Amnesty International (such as this report). However, it does appear that discussions between Amnesty and Shell have broken down somewhat, so in a way it is a blessing that SPEAK has this opportunity to continue the dialogue approach right now. (Of course some of us might also point out that 'speaking up' can take different forms; that maybe there is a time for dialogue, and there is a time to pursue other forms of campaigning to demonstrate our opposition...)
- In response to a question about Shell’s steps in meeting the 2011 UNEP report’s recommendations, he claimed that Shell’s hands were tied, because they had to wait for the government to act first. (One of the recommendations for oil industry operators is financially contributing to a $1bn 'Environmental Restoration Fund for Ogoniland'). He said that Shell were generally supportive of the document (they funded it - make of that what you will), and were ready to make precise commitments as soon as the Nigerian government said what it wanted. (In the meantime he also acknowledged the current situation was unacceptable and claimed short-term solutions have been implemented, such as the provision of large amounts of clean water to affected communities, the drilling of deeper wells, etc.) We put it to him that it was rather a conflict of interests that the Nigerian government were expected to be regulators, yet owned a 55% stake; he said that this was a common set-up for oil industries around the globe. He also came out against UNEP’s criticism of the RENA approach (see p.145 of the report), saying that Shell believed the procedure genuinely did work in achieving clean-up levels that met ‘international standards’.
- On the subject of gas flaring, we noted that two days ago Shell had announced a recent 20% reduction in gas flaring and thanked Barnaby for this. However, were there plans to actually ever cease this wasteful, harmful practice? Barnaby answered that Shell were aiming to reduce the amount of gas flared to 'below the global average', though could not state when this might happen. Secondly, he emphatically claimed that Shell had scientific evidence (yet unpublished) that gas flaring, though wasteful and 'unsightly', actually had no adverse health effects. This contradicts outright the anecdotal evidence we received from Ruth when she spoke to us at Soundcheck back in February - and clearly needs more investigation.
- As for what Shell were trying to do to help developmentally, he said that they were struggling for answers, but were still trying. Currently Shell puts up $70m for Nigerian social development projects, although he thought this was actually the wrong strategy (so much funding was ‘attracting the wrong sort of people’, and exacerbating the problems). He was proud of aiding things like local hairdressing salons, however. The main initiative Barnaby championed was a ‘community energy project’, currently under construction through the Living Earth Foundation (an NGO he boasted a long-term relationship with). This would be a local refinery for natural gas that would provide power for a small community – preventing gas flaring, providing electricity (‘everybody wins’). He said it was a pilot project and would be waiting to see how successful it would be, and also voiced (probably very legitimate) concerns over 'developmental aid' creating dependence and prompting some people seeing Shell as the government through its provision of services.
- Overall, Barnaby stressed that the issue of environmental management with regards to the oil industry in the Niger Delta was highly complex and multi-faceted – pointing especially to Nigeria's levels of economic poverty, its diverse demographics, the high daily bunkering and illegal refining of oil, the low public awareness of the dangers of such practices, plus how socioeconomic inequalities can lead to unexpected consequences (one example he gave was of how Shell had paid a local contract to clean-up a spill around a village, hosted a party to celebrate that evening, then woke up the next morning to tragically find oil there again. People had thought that there was more money for them in doing the clean-up business). His line on the whole was that there was of course room for Shell to do more (particularly once the government had given the go-ahead), but they were certainly trying and they were certainly not the only culprits (or only ones responsible for the restoration) in this mess.
PRAYER POINTS:
- Give thanks that Barnaby and his assistant Sally gave their time to listen and engage with us, and for all the positive work that their team does through Shell's corporate responsibility department.
- It is now almost 9 months since the UNEP Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland was published, but there has still been no formal response from the Nigerian Government. Since it was them that originally commissioned the report, and since Shell aren't going to take concrete action until the government respond, let's be praying that there is progress in this area very soon!
- The Shell AGM is coming up on May 22nd. Pray that shareholders will raise this pressing issue of restoring God's creation in the Niger Delta, as well as the ceasing of gas flaring.
- Leigh Day & Co solicitors are currently pursuing a case through the UK courts against Shell on behalf of the people of Bodo. Let's pray for a just outcome and thank God that such a law firm exists for the cause of 'David vs Goliath' justice.
- 69,000 people were immediately affected by the two major 2008 oil spills in Bodo alone...not to mention those affected by many other episodes of pollution that still occur frequently, those harmed by gas flaring, etc. Pray for those victims today (including members of SPEAK Nigeria!) - for their comfort, their healing, and their ultimate joy in God's Kingdom.
ACTION POINTS:
- After several years of recording signatures, in February we submitted our Unfinished Business campaign mp3 petition as part of the CoRe coalition calling for a UK Commission on Business, Human Rights and the Environment. But it is never too late to lobby your MP on this issue! Information is on our website, for a briefing paper to pop in the envelope just get in touch [see below].
- Despite the Nigerian government's inaction, more pressure on Shell to take this seriously can only be a good thing. If you haven't already signed this Amnesty petition, please do it now and aim to get another 10 friends to do so!
- Stay tuned for a potential lobby action of the Nigerian government in the near future...
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Speak up for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy".
[proverbs 31:8-9]
The UNEP report can be found here.
See this facebook note on our page for more background information about the story so far.
http://www.speak.org.uk/campaigns/corporate-accountability
SPEAK like to be as transparent as possible! If you'd like to ask more questions about the meeting, or the corporate responsibility campaign in general, then please email andy: andy@speak.org.uk
2 May 2012 - 3:45pm
The Cost of the Cross for Campaigners
Printer-friendly versionSend to friend
Martyrs have got a bad name these days. I grew up hearing stories of the early church, and those people who died at the hands of the Roman empire, simply for standing up for what they believed in. Peter, Joan of Arc, Bonhoeffer. All these people were noble victims because they stood up and faced death when issued with the choice between denying what they believed and suffering at the hands of their oppressors.
I'm pretty sure that those who had lost their lives standing up for their faith were to be admired. But sadly, the rise of religious fundamentalism (and I'm including Christians here) has led us to take a slightly more cautious approach. I recently spent some time in the West Bank, where I encountered, for the most part, people who were kind, generous, and quietly determined not to accept their occupation by Israel as a fait accompli. These people - Muslim and Christian - were not violent idealogues, they were simply individuals tired of existing in the shadow of the Israeli state and its encroachment on every aspect of their lives.
But there was one thing which troubled me – and that was the posters of Palestinian 'martyrs' which littered the walls. The trouble was not with the bizarre fusion of Hollywood action-hero and Islamic imagery, or even idea that someone might celebrate those who have died defending their right to a nation; my trouble was with the designation of all those who have died as “martyrs”. To me, a martyr is an innocent victim of an unjust situation – not someone who takes up arms against his oppressor.
It sometimes worries me that Jesus never directly challenged the Roman occupation under which he himself was subjugated. When a Roman officer came to him and asked what he must do to be saved, Jesus didn't call him to lay down his arms and reject the establishment of which he was a part. Instead, he called him into radical discipleship. What a lost opportunity! And yet, here we are, in SPEAK, directly challenging powers and principalities, because we believe that the call of Christ is to justice and peace.
But over this Easter weekend, I have been reflecting on Christ's death at the hands of an empire He refused to reject. What was He doing? Why was he not railing against the injustices perpetrated by the sprawling empire? Why does he just stand there and take it? After all, a gross injustice is being perpetrated against Him! The Jewish people expected a messiah who would come and deliver them from the Roman Empire; someone who would sweep in and destroy their oppressors. Jesus failed to do so. Actually, he didn't fail. He refused even to try. Which is an important distinction.
Jesus refused to identify the individual guards with the system they were a part of. He refused to point the finger at Pilate, and hold him up as an example of everything that was wrong with society. He refused to rebuke the guards who beat him, or scorn the crowds who were mocking Him.
Instead, he said one thing: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”. An innocent man, God incarnate, pinned to a cross, flanked by thieves and murderers, forgiving those who had persecuted him. As an act of non-violent resistance, it's a powerful statement. As an act of civil disobedience, resurrection beats them all.
And it contains a message to us as campaigners: we must not be in the business of condemning others – even those who are part of the structures we abhor. The true Christian approach to campaigning requires us to love the oppressors, and true martyrdom might include laying down the sense of self-righteousness we get from condemning them. Instead we are called to stand with those who are victims, even when it leads us to the cross.
10 Apr 2012 - 9:34pm
Farewell to Sarah and Rachel!
Printer-friendly versionSend to friend
SPEAK inspires a special sort of dedication from everyone who gets involved, and the Network Support team is no exception. This week, the NST are sad to be saying farewell to two members of the team. Over the last few years, they have poured themselves into SPEAK, giving their time, energy and considerable gifts to support the network. You may not have met them, or even been previously aware of their existence, but if you are, or have been a member of a SPEAK group over the last couple of rears, you have benefitted from the work they have done.
Sarah Henderson joined SPEAK as an administrator in November 2010, and gamely took on the role of acting co-ordinator when the position became vacant in April last year. In her time at SPEAK, she has overseen Vocal Training, two glorious Soundchecks, four shiny new editions of Volumize, a change of office and (most importantly) cared for, encouraged and built up the team who support the Network. You may also have noticed the beautiful cut-out designs for the Vocal Training, Soundcheck and Flower Model resources. That was her.
Slightly less glamourously, she has spent weekends surrounded by piles of invoices, updating the SPEAK accounts, sorted out our (messy) storage situation – even when a leak rendered piles of “Core Values” booklets nauseatingly stagnant and mouldy.
But most of all, she has brought a sunny disposition, creative energy and no-nonsense commitment which will be hard to beat. She's moving on to work for the Shoreditch Trust, and I'm sure our loss will be their gain.
Rachel Carpenter has been working for SPEAK for over two years, having started as a Regional Support Worker back in 2010, after a brief stint in London helping prepare for Soundcheck. She worked tirelessly supporting Groups and Links in the North-West and Midlands of England for a year, before specialising in communications.
Since then, she has been diligently keeping the wheels of SPEAK oiled, editing Volumize, using her experience as an RSW to develop new resources and approaches for our support, particularly of SPEAK Links, and sifting through hours and hours of MP3s for our Unfinished Business campaign. In fact, she has been so quiet and uncomplaining, we suspect that once she has left, we will find a vast array of other tasks that she performed without any of us realising.
We're sure we haven't seen the last of either of them, but we'd like to take this opportunity to thank Sarah and Rachel for all they’ve done to support the SPEAK Network, and to wish them all the best for the future.
We're always on the lookout for new people to join the NST. If you'd be interested in joining the Network Support Team, or Volunteering for SPEAK, get in touch!
30 Mar 2012 - 6:03pm
A People of Tents
Tagged:
Printer-friendly versionSend to friend
So it's been a couple of weeks since the Occupy St. Pauls folk were unceremoniously removed from their campsite..
Walking past the site of the occupation, there is barely any evidence of their former presence. They were there for five months, made national news, and now have dissipated. They are no longer darlings of the news cycle, and no longer a thorn in the side of St. Paul's Cathedral.
Which, in many ways, is a shame. It is a shame that we no longer have the opportunity to watch the institution of the church twist itself into knots trying to reconcile its calling to the poor, and it’s need to sustain an opulent building and love for its multinational parishioners.It's a shame that we no longer have a voice in the centre of London, calling into question the very structures that we trust to hold up our economy and society.
But here's something important to remember about the occupy movement. They stayed in tents. Tents are, by their very nature, temporary. They are designed to be put up quickly, packed down quickly and lived in for a limited period of time. They keep us mobile, flexible, stop us from being an institution. If occupy stayed where it was indefinitely, do we really think it would have remained vital, challenging, counter-cultural? Or would it have petrified into a political movement, tied up in its own ever-increasing ideals? The removal of the tents is not a failure, or a conclusion for Occupy St. Paul's. It's an evolution. A move off the streets and into the minds and newspapers and chattering blogs that have really been its strength all along.
The sad thing is, as Christians, we are meant to be a people of tents. Following a pillar of fire, housed in a tabernacle, the Israelites pitched their tent wherever their God was. For forty years, they wandered in the desert, God refusing to let them get comfortable, refusing to let them settle down. Jewish thought has been defined by exile – the idea that faith can persevere in the face of displacement and dispersal. When the disciples encountered Moses and Elijah up a mountain, what was their response? “Let's make shelters!”
The apostle Paul relied on tent-making for an income – not depending on the more charitable members of the early Church. This kept him independent, sharp; you could say it prevented him from being subject to the whims of the institutions of faith. It meant that he could be free to speak as he chose, stay provocative, and stand against the wisdom of the day.
But over the years, we got lazy. We built homes for God out of stone, and with it lost our ability to challenge – to be prophetic. Even the most modern churches occasionally make the error of equating building projects and physical growth with success and authenticity.
Nowhere was this conflict more apparent than when the occupy protesters came up against St. Paul's. The church, rooted in the bedrock of the city, and dependent on its millions of visitors to preserve its monumental edifices, struggled to find its prophetic voice – while, the protesters, nimble and quick, and with nothing to lose but their canvas dwellings, were free to be more challenging.
What would our faith look like without buildings? It would make us more dynamic, more challenging. We would be able to be more authentic in our community, less reliant on places to define us. Should we return to our roots, then, as people of the tent?
26 Mar 2012 - 4:13pm
How should the church respond to the ethics behind free-market economics?
Printer-friendly versionSend to friend
Rachel Dismorr studied Theology at Exeter University, where she was a the faith link for her Speak group. While she was studying, she wrote this article on free market economics. She currently is living in Uganda.
________________________
The free-market currently generates gross inequalities where many very wealthy individuals are rich at the expense of poor. The Bible contains radical teachings about the injustice of vast inequalities of wealth and speaks fervently about helping the poor. Practically there needs to be more Government intervention of businesses to place limits on consumption, unethical behaviour and practices which harm the environment. The Government, as well as individuals, must create a fairer world economy through fairer trade rules, corporate accountability of businesses in the developed world, regulations to help diminish the huge inequalities between rich and poor countries and provide aid throughout developing countries.
A major problem with the free-market system is that it promotes personal gain ahead of the welfare of others. Adam Smith was the founder of capitalism, he provided a theory of supply and demand to meet the desires of consumers.1 He believed that the free-market system benefits everyone and that purely self-interest and greedy behaviour of consumers is not to be despised. He argued that, in seeking personal gain, the supplier is forced to address the needs of customers. On the other hand, the message Jesus brought was one of self denial, he said that “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (Mark 8:34). Christianity emphasises the love of others highly, whereas the free-market gives priority to the self.
Ultimately the church must help to promote life and community, not profit and greed. They must aim to create a world where people do not suffer in extreme poverty due to the actions of rich countries promoted by the free-market system. Instead the church needs to fight for radical reform of the global free-market to promote higher levels of equality and justice, where human life is valued above all. Every system is flawed, however if the free-market is to proceed it must not continue to leave in its trail devastation and loss of life. Economy must be fundamentally concerned with livelihood. If it is to be an ethical economical system then the free-market needs radical changes and must no longer exploit the poor in developing nations. The Bible still demands institutionalized mechanisms that will offer everyone the opportunity to earn a just living.2 We need economists immersed in biblical faith who will rethink economics as if poor people mattered and demand socio-economic structures that provide people with the opportunity to acquire the capital necessary to earn their own way.
1James Cypher, James Dietz, The Process of Economic Development, p. 111.
2Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, p. 266.
7 Mar 2012 - 5:19pm
Streams in the Desert
Printer-friendly versionSend to friend
Rachel Carpenter explores the theme for this year's Soundcheck.
Sometimes it can be really hard to keep campaigning.
Working towards a long term campaign can feel like setting off on a strenuous journey.
A tough campaign with strong opposition, can feel like you’re heading steadily uphill, over sand dunes. And sometimes, especially if you find yourself surrounded by people who don’t share your passion for justice, the slowly trickling drain of motivation can feel like you’re carrying a water bottle with a leak.
Deserts are tough places to survive. The dry, barren sand can dehydrate and almost suck out life.
Yet even in the driest and most barren of deserts, life still exists. Certain animals and plants have adapted to be able to go a long time without water, or have developed techniques to protect themselves against the burning sun.
How can we build up our own spiritual protection to stop motivation and passion for justice from drying out?
We want Soundcheck this year to be like an oasis in the desert, a place where people gather together with others who are on the same campaigning journey. We want to be refreshed and newly inspired by stories of people who have learnt how to keep on fighting against injustice, even when things get tough.
We want to learn how we can be ‘streams in the desert’; refreshing, motivating and inspiring those who come into contact with us.
Come join us this year, as we look to God as the source of our refreshment and explore his promises about providing life-giving water in the wilderness.
By Rachel Carpenter, artwork by Anna Snowball
Book your ticket for Soundcheck here.
If you'd like to write a reflection on our theme, 'Streams in the Desert', just email speak@speak.org.uk
6 Jan 2012 - 12:57pm
Why do we Campaign for Change?
Printer-friendly versionSend to friend
In this entry SPEAK member Chloe Skinner explores the importance of not just giving to charity but also supporting campaigns for change.
There’s charity. And then there’s Change. Both are essential given the state of the world, but there is a huge difference. Charity consists of an individual or group voluntarily transferring resources to a group or individual who have fewer resources, an action which, when performed lovingly with integrity and efficiency, can literally save lives, prevent misery and maintain the dignity of the recipient. Yet, Change, and here I refer to Change from our unjust society to a global society in which social justice prevails, endeavours to address the systemic, structural or institutional arrangements through which excessive inequalities producing the need for charity are eradicated. This difference between charity and Change is highlighted numerous times in the New Testament, for example when Jesus reprimands the Pharisees for tithing fastidiously whilst failing to address issues of love and justice (Luke 11v42).
A brief look at statistics indicates the urgency for Change (I use a capital C intentionally) in our global society, in which decisions are made by, and for, a self-constructed ‘elite’ minority. Fundamental imbalances of power in our broken system continue to lead to human suffering on a colossal scale, skewing the distribution of resources so much that 447 multimillionaires own a greater fortune than the annual income of half of humanity, whilst over a third of the global population lack access to clean water and basic sanitation. Meanwhile, diseases transmitted though water and poor sanitation continue to kill an estimated 3,900 children per day, and malaria kills one child every 30 seconds. The UNDP (2005) blames these deaths on ‘a failure to address the structural causes of poverty and inequality’.
It is essential that we recognise, acknowledge and SPEAK out such injustices, refusing to be distracted by the inane chatter of advertising companies, media firms, corporations and political rhetoric which set to distract us from uncomfortable realities indicating that swathes of humanity are shackled by injustice. Having acknowledged this, we must move forward. We must believe in something better. We must believe in Change. We must campaign for Change. In fact, we must- it is a matter of life and (avoidable) death.
There are many ways in which we can do this, but for now let’s touch upon three. Firstly, lifestyles reflect values. For example, consumer-driven lifestyles which demand ‘More for Less’ feed the For-Profit system which allows multinational corporations to drive down prices, keeping their suppliers locked in poverty. Your consumer choices, therefore, matter. Secondly, we must campaign for Change. This does work. SPEAK has been part of movements which have led to the closure of DESO (the old, larger government department supporting private companies arms deals with taxpayers money), changes in company law which, for the first time, introduces duties for directors to consider the social and environmental impacts of their actions, introduced the idea of a ‘supermarket ombudsman’ into parliamentary discussions and proposals, and much more. Thirdly, in financial giving it is important to remember that campaign’s cost- but they are cost effective. Using UN statistics, Christian Aid estimated that changing international regulations and practices governing global trade could result in an extra $100 billion for poor countries, every 8 weeks. Giving at their current rate, Christian Aid would need to have started fundraising around the time of Jesus’ crucifixion to have reached $100 billion. SPEAK estimate that if 200 people gave £25 per month, it would cover all costs, including campaigns, training, events, rent etc.
Inhibiting just and harmonious relationships within our human family, the direct and indirect actions of institutions, systems, structures and individuals relentlessly, and increasingly, lead to avoidable human suffering, and so the world is far from God’s desire for a holistic ‘shalom’. Let us Change this. We Can. We Must.
Chloe Skinner
If you would like to support SPEAK’s campaigns financially you can do so here.
20 Dec 2011 - 12:48pm
The Church and the world
Printer-friendly versionSend to friend
Left: The annual Christmas reconstruction of Bethlehem outside The Basilica de Nuestra Señora del Pilar, Zaragoza, Spain;
Right: A demonstration by ‘Los Indignados’ outside the same church
This may seem cowardly, but I’m going to start with a disclaimer. What follows is meant to provoke, and perhaps challenge – not to say “this is how it is”, but rather “maybe this is partly how it is”. I’m honestly not sure how well it represents even my own views, so I’ve no idea if it represents Speak’s. Observations are based on what I hear from Occupy London, and what I saw earlier in the year of a similar protest by “Los Indignados” in the Spanish city of Zaragoza, where I live. That protest was in turn inspired by the thousands who camped in Puerta del Sol, Madrid.
What if the ‘Occupy’ movement is occupying space that we, the Church, should have been occupying? In many ways this is obvious: denouncing injustice and the structures that support it, actively exploring alternative visions, calling for change, etc. These are all part of the Church’s calling that we’re probably pretty comfortable with, at least in theory (as an aside though, we should beware theoretical comfort! In practise, doing these things can make life very uncomfortable). I’d like to suggest something deeper though. What if, in their very nature as well as their day-to-day practicalities, the Occupy protests are occupying a space where the Church should have been for about the last 2,000 years?
Here we have a radical community which meets daily, is of one heart and mind (NOT in agreement on everything, but then I don’t think that’s ever what that meant), and works together in commitment to an active hope that there is an alternative to what the world currently offers. They are not sacrificing people to their vision though – they take each other’s welfare seriously, recognising perhaps that as soon as they start seeing people as a means to an end, all is lost (are we not living stones? Are we not ourselves the building material for the dwelling of God?). They give space to study, education and empowerment. They recognise that the needy (the homeless, the alcoholics) will be attracted to their little society for very practical reasons, and they don’t shrug this off as an unintended consequence. Instead they try to make sure the needy of their community are fed and empowered – because they want to see the needy of the world fed and empowered, and they recognise that charity begins at home (though it doesn’t end there).
I have no wish to idolise, and my point is not “lets all be like them”. Instead I’m suggesting that maybe they are there because we were not. I gladly acknowledge the role the Church has played in the fight against evils global and local throughout history, but in my opinion anyone who has never looked at the life of Jesus, then looked at the Church today and thought “2,000 years? How did we get here?” doesn’t read the gospels enough. Lets see this movement as a challenge and an inspiration, as well a reminder that the kingdom of God is among us (as well as within us). We have to take the world as it is, firstly because that’s how God takes us and secondly because, as a friend of mine once said “You don’t get very far otherwise”. But just as God loves us too much to leave us caught in our chains and our destructive habits, lets love the world enough to be part of movements for freedom, messy though they be, and lets pray for the church and for the world (thanking God for his goodness), that both would be bold to try radical forms of honesty, community, societal organisation and, dare I say it, love.
Michael Bourne
23 Nov 2011 - 10:12am
Forced Labour and Slavery - a post from FALE, SPEAK's sister network in Brazil
Printer-friendly versionSend to friend
The challenges to face in Forced labor: big brands are involved in commercially lucrative slavery relations.
SPEAK Network Brazil launches a campaign against forced labor in São Paulo.
Contemporary slavery is a serious problem. One of the difficulties that governments and civil society organizations face to overcome it is the accepted idea that slavery was totally abolished during the abolitionists struggles of the 19thcentury. Formally, it was – thanks to the efforts of many Christians and churches around the world. But one of its main characteristics remained: the loss of liberty. In many countries, poor people are in precarious labor relations and fake-contracts, that lead them to enormous debts, and to the lost of liberty.
Brazil is one of the countries that still face difficulties to overcome this reality. According to Father Ricardo Rezende Figueira, contemporary slavery starts with the promise of employment made by a slave trader – who is usually called “gato”, in Brazil – to young people who embark on precarious means of transport in search of the dream of better living conditions for themselves and their families. In his book called Stepping out of your own shadow (2004), Father Figueira describes the way it still happens: a system in which the employee acquires debt with travel, accommodation, food and tools used in his own work activity and, to pay his debts, he or she is subjected to exhaustive journeys and prevented from leaving work by the means of threats.
In Brazilian rural areas, where many live in extreme poverty, more than 5.000 people were rescued from slavery by government authorities in the last two years (2009-2010). However, there are several cases of forced labor in the urban areas of Brazilian Major Cities that are not getting the same attention from the government. In São Paulo, many immigrants are subjected to work more than 12 hours per day without break and with very low wages. Despite recent media reports on the cases of Zara and McDonalds, there are no effective official investigations on the cases, and many go unpunished.
Concerned with this situation and with the support of the USINA 21 Youth Movement, FALE's (SPEAK Network) local group in Sao Paulo is launching an online petition "SPEAK Out against forced labor in Sao Paulo." It is adressed to the President of the State Parliament of São Paulo, to start a Parliament Commission of Inquiry (CPI) on the issue, and secure a serious investigation of these cases.
To read it in English, click here.
To read the original petition in Portuguese, click here
To sign the petition, and support FALE’s Campaign, click here
By Marcus Vinicius Matos
21 Nov 2011 - 4:19pm