My heart goes out to the family of Lee Rigby who was brutally murdered last Wednesday. For a brief moment, before this story was hijacked by Islamaphobic rhetoric, the media spotlight shone on the “Angels of mercy”. Armed only with compassion and the ability to listen, these women managed to stem a murderous rampage, preventing further carnage during the excruciating 20 minutes it took the police to appear.
The traditional masculine model of leadership which emphasises, confrontation rather than conciliation, and telling rather than listening, accounts for much of the mess we find ourselves in. If Tony Bliar had listened to the British public over Iraq, the world, I believe, would be a safer place. Instead, testosterone charged men played (and continue to play) toy soldiers with our lives and it is ordinary women and men left to pick up the pieces once the havoc is unleashed.
In the wake of 9/11 and later 7/11, I was disturbed by the media’s propensity to conflate Islam with terrorism. I was running a training course shortly after 7/11 when a participant arrived late. He had been jumped on by a gang of “skin heads” who shouted Islamaphobic obscenities while beating the crap out of him, ending with “Go home Paki”? He was a cockney atheist but he was flaunting a deep tan at the time, which, under the circumstances (media whipping up hatred of any one “foreign looking”), was foolhardy. Tanning booths in Dale Winton’s neighbourhood were on the brink of bankruptcy for a fortnight.
I wrote about the disturbing discourse in the media as it unfolded and started working with news editors behind the scenes. Rendered almost catatonic with anxiety at the potential fallout from the media’s response to the alleged Forest Gate plot, I wrote the following letter to a reputable newspaper;
“Your handling of the alleged plot was gratuitously sensationalist, misinformed, grossly irresponsible and, like most of the other mainstream media, completely out of sync with the public's take on events.
Blair and Bush have lost the plot, pursuing their deluded "war on terror" that effectively equates to an indefensible war on Muslims. They act in defiance of public outrage and as a consequence they are systematically destabilising the world and putting our lives in danger. At a time like this, the public expect the media to be asking questions about: the timing of the alleged plot [deflecting the government’s procrastination over Lebanon] and Blair/Bush's tendency to play the politics of fear card to win back support when faced with the back lash of a morally corrupt foreign policy, before naming and shaming innocent (until proven guilty) civilians and stoking an already volatile climate of Islamaphobia.
Your main story lacked basic journalistic integrity, such as widespread dispensing with the use of the word "alleged", presenting the story as fact, naming the suspects and dissecting their lives, the disproportionately large image of the model sister. Do you seriously believe your readers would be more impressed by salacious scare mongering and pictures of a pretty model than by the desire to see our government's actions scrutinised?
Sensational coverage, which amounts to trial by media of British Muslims, leads to a direct increase in faith hate crimes on the street. Everything from torching of mosques, beatings and rape, to murder. All I ask is that you are cognisant of the above and that you ask more discerning questions before blindly acting as the establishment's propaganda machine”.
Shortly afterwards the two men arrested were completely cleared, though their lives were irreparably marred. Seven years on, the malestream media remains overwhelmingly homogeneous with the same Islamaphobic overtones, inciting yet more hate crimes against Muslims. In the absence of any real connection with various communities, the police, politicians and the media resort to hackneyed, dangerous stereotypes.
Foreign policy that sanctions torture abroad will always come back to bite. There is no greater recruiting sergeant for terrorism than torturing innocent civilians. We know from history that if we oppress and deny people their right to self determination, abuse them and deprive them recourse to justice, they will fight back. Whilst the killing of Lee Rigby was barbarous and his killers must be held to account, spare a thought for all the thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, for example, who have seen loved ones slain but will never receive justice. Last week The High Court ruled that the task force responsible for investigating hundreds of allegations of abuse and murder of Iraqis by British troops was failing to meet the UK’s obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to investigate “suspicious deaths involving the state”.
An ex soldier told me that he felt he was brainwashed by the army to do things he never thought possible to another human being. He said “they fill your head full of horror stories, lies, about what they [Iraqis] do to their children so that you see them as animals and treat them accordingly”. This man suffers Post Traumatic Stress and struggles with what he did on a daily basis. He and others like him have been let down by the war mongerers and their successors. It was reported in the news today that incapacity benefit is being unceremoniously withdrawn from many disabled veterans.
Austerity measures (a euphemism for stealing from the poor to give to the rich) seemed to escape media scrutiny in all this. Even before the recession, minority ethnic young men, such as the alleged Woolwich attackers, were more likely to be excluded from school and be over represented in prison, social and psychiatric services, and twice as likely to be unemployed as their white counterparts. A recent report showed that, although this has been known for decades, nothing has been done to stem the crisis.
It’s an affront to a long suffering British public that the political elite defend bankers’ right to obscene bonuses (funded in part by shutting down youth centres and taking away incapacity benefit from the disabled soldiers) on the grounds that they take enormous risk. The fact that the risks are with other people’s money and the consequences are negligible to them is ignored. When you compare the risk those women who stepped into the breach in Woolwich took, it holds a mirror up to society. The image I see is twisted and ugly. They risked their lives for the greater good. In contrast, the reckless risk taking of the bankers has had crippling societal, as opposed to personal, consequences. They have left a trail of broken hearts and minds in their wake.
A generation of young people are faced with the prospect of long term unemployment, alienation and anger. Inequality and injustice on this scale is a recipe for social unrest. Terrorists are filling a position made vacant in the minds of some of our most disaffected young men by a society that will bail out miscreants in suits but starve our youth of investment, care and any hope for the future. If you have nothing, there’s nothing left to lose.
Tuesday, 28 May 2013
Friday, 17 May 2013
Child Sex Gangs Flourish in a Society That Sexualises Girls
In the wake of the Oxford child slavery scandal there has been lots of soul searching. We owe it to the victims to do more than that. We need to address the institutional and societal rot that allowed vulnerable children to be sexually exploited for eight years before anyone heard their cries for help.
Cathy was a child and a prostitute. From the age of four her parents had sex parties where adults would abuse each others children. On the few occasions that Cathy found the courage to tell trusted adults, no-one believed her. Her parents were both white doctors and “respectable” people don’t behave like that. She was living on the streets at 12, a drug addict at 13 and by the time I met her, at 14, she was “owned” by a pimp in central London. I spent Christmas with her in casualty. She had been raped with a broken bottle and was severely traumatised.
With a background in child psychology I got a temporary job in a children’s home in Westminster. I was Cathy’s key worker. Whenever she failed to come back at night I would call the police. I was frequently accused of wasting their time. One officer berated that he could be stopping a real crime, like a burglary, instead of taking down details of a “delinquent girl”. They knew about the grooming, and the history of abuse, yet they didn’t see that as a crime. It was as if the abuse of a girl, especially one in a children’s home, was inevitable and acceptable even.
Last year, Ryan Coleman-Farrow, former Met detective Constable was jailed for sabotaging numerous rape cases. Given the constant failings of the police to take rape and violence against girls and women seriously, I would argue the case for a McPherson type enquiry (http://news.bbc.co.uk/news/vote2001/hi/english/main_issues/sections/facts/newsid_1190000/1190971.stm) into institutional misogyny. In the same way that it was found that an overwhelmingly white police service contributed to institutional racism, it’s clear that the male dominated macho police culture is failing women and girls.
It’s not like this is new. The police have got form ignoring vulnerable girls in Rochdale, Derby and Telford, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The Soham murderer, Ian Huntley, had nine allegations of sexual assault made against him, including underage sex with girls. Had the police listened to any of these girls the murders of Holly and Jessica could have been prevented. One of the Rochdale victims told the BBC that after reporting her abuse to social services and police, they effectively told her parents she was a prostitute and that her sexual exploitation was a “lifestyle choice”. She was 15.
A few years ago judge Julian Hall accused a 10 year old rape victim of “dressing provocatively” and “looking 16”, implying she was asking for it. He previously allowed a paedophile to walk free after sexually assaulting a 7 year old suggesting he buy her a bike “to cheer her up”. Early this year judge Niclas Parry, whilst sentencing a man for rape, scolded his teenage victim for “letting herself down” because she had been drinking that evening. Blaming the victim it seems is preferable to confronting societal attitudes to women, masculinity, abuse and power.
The police, social services and the judiciary involved in dealing with abused girls operate within a culture where the sexualisation of females is so pervasive, we take it for granted. Yet, it propagates unconscious stereotypes and influences policy and decisions. Be it playboy duvets, “porn star” shorts, lap dancing kits, padded bras for prepubescent girls and TV soaps depicting underage sex as normal. One of the Oxford victims said she thought what was happening to her must be normal. Portraying women and girls as sex objects perpetuates degradation. Objectification is dehumanising. That’s the point. It’s much easier to abuse a non person reduced to mere body parts. Tits and ass usually. Increasingly women, and girls, are perceived as commodities. To be bought and sold. It’s within this cultural context that vulnerable girls were sold as sex slaves in Oxford.
There is a known link between sexual imagery and violence towards women. The emergence of the Lad mags has contributed to the desensitisation of men to the dehumanisation of women. Nuts ran a competition wherein “girlfriends” were asked to send in pictures of their breasts, which were then published with their heads cut off. The student website Unilad was reported as having the following posting: “85% of rape cases go unreported. That seems fairly good odds”. No doubt paedophiles and sexual predators throughout Britain will be thinking the same. The message is clear. Sexual assault against women and children is acceptable in our society. Do your worst, we don’t really care.
What about social services? Most of the staff at the home that I worked in were not qualified. Yet, we trust them with one of society’s most precious resources, our children. The social worker I dealt with, like so many, was overworked and under resourced. Burnout rate is high and the first thing to go is compassion. Thus, contact with “clients” is infrequent and brief so as to minimise empathy. Yet, without empathy, what use can any of us be to vulnerable children? Children’s services have always been under resourced but if the sex gang scandals teach us anything, it is that we need to invest in our children and, as a bare minimum, keep them safe. We need people who have the time to listen and to care. In the words of Nelson Mandela, “There can be no keener revelation of society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children”.
Cathy was a child and a prostitute. From the age of four her parents had sex parties where adults would abuse each others children. On the few occasions that Cathy found the courage to tell trusted adults, no-one believed her. Her parents were both white doctors and “respectable” people don’t behave like that. She was living on the streets at 12, a drug addict at 13 and by the time I met her, at 14, she was “owned” by a pimp in central London. I spent Christmas with her in casualty. She had been raped with a broken bottle and was severely traumatised.
With a background in child psychology I got a temporary job in a children’s home in Westminster. I was Cathy’s key worker. Whenever she failed to come back at night I would call the police. I was frequently accused of wasting their time. One officer berated that he could be stopping a real crime, like a burglary, instead of taking down details of a “delinquent girl”. They knew about the grooming, and the history of abuse, yet they didn’t see that as a crime. It was as if the abuse of a girl, especially one in a children’s home, was inevitable and acceptable even.
Last year, Ryan Coleman-Farrow, former Met detective Constable was jailed for sabotaging numerous rape cases. Given the constant failings of the police to take rape and violence against girls and women seriously, I would argue the case for a McPherson type enquiry (http://news.bbc.co.uk/news/vote2001/hi/english/main_issues/sections/facts/newsid_1190000/1190971.stm) into institutional misogyny. In the same way that it was found that an overwhelmingly white police service contributed to institutional racism, it’s clear that the male dominated macho police culture is failing women and girls.
It’s not like this is new. The police have got form ignoring vulnerable girls in Rochdale, Derby and Telford, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The Soham murderer, Ian Huntley, had nine allegations of sexual assault made against him, including underage sex with girls. Had the police listened to any of these girls the murders of Holly and Jessica could have been prevented. One of the Rochdale victims told the BBC that after reporting her abuse to social services and police, they effectively told her parents she was a prostitute and that her sexual exploitation was a “lifestyle choice”. She was 15.
A few years ago judge Julian Hall accused a 10 year old rape victim of “dressing provocatively” and “looking 16”, implying she was asking for it. He previously allowed a paedophile to walk free after sexually assaulting a 7 year old suggesting he buy her a bike “to cheer her up”. Early this year judge Niclas Parry, whilst sentencing a man for rape, scolded his teenage victim for “letting herself down” because she had been drinking that evening. Blaming the victim it seems is preferable to confronting societal attitudes to women, masculinity, abuse and power.
The police, social services and the judiciary involved in dealing with abused girls operate within a culture where the sexualisation of females is so pervasive, we take it for granted. Yet, it propagates unconscious stereotypes and influences policy and decisions. Be it playboy duvets, “porn star” shorts, lap dancing kits, padded bras for prepubescent girls and TV soaps depicting underage sex as normal. One of the Oxford victims said she thought what was happening to her must be normal. Portraying women and girls as sex objects perpetuates degradation. Objectification is dehumanising. That’s the point. It’s much easier to abuse a non person reduced to mere body parts. Tits and ass usually. Increasingly women, and girls, are perceived as commodities. To be bought and sold. It’s within this cultural context that vulnerable girls were sold as sex slaves in Oxford.
There is a known link between sexual imagery and violence towards women. The emergence of the Lad mags has contributed to the desensitisation of men to the dehumanisation of women. Nuts ran a competition wherein “girlfriends” were asked to send in pictures of their breasts, which were then published with their heads cut off. The student website Unilad was reported as having the following posting: “85% of rape cases go unreported. That seems fairly good odds”. No doubt paedophiles and sexual predators throughout Britain will be thinking the same. The message is clear. Sexual assault against women and children is acceptable in our society. Do your worst, we don’t really care.
What about social services? Most of the staff at the home that I worked in were not qualified. Yet, we trust them with one of society’s most precious resources, our children. The social worker I dealt with, like so many, was overworked and under resourced. Burnout rate is high and the first thing to go is compassion. Thus, contact with “clients” is infrequent and brief so as to minimise empathy. Yet, without empathy, what use can any of us be to vulnerable children? Children’s services have always been under resourced but if the sex gang scandals teach us anything, it is that we need to invest in our children and, as a bare minimum, keep them safe. We need people who have the time to listen and to care. In the words of Nelson Mandela, “There can be no keener revelation of society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children”.
Friday, 10 May 2013
Mary McCarthy, R.I.P
“The lengths some people will go to, to flog a book”. Those were my parting words to Mary McCarthy, the accomplished author, mother and teacher, who was buried on Tuesday. When Mary was in the early stages of writing her last book, "After the Rain", she said it was difficult motivating herself to write a novel that might never get published. “Let’s face it Tess, there’s never going to be a bidding war over a book about terminal cancer”.
In the throes of grief at the loss of a parent to cancer myself at the time, I was indignant. Self help books pontificating about how to “navigate” your way through the stages of grief, without harming yourself or others, weren’t working for me. Admittedly, I had been stuck in the anger stage for longer than was strictly healthy. My wrath manifested itself primarily, though not exclusively, in pram rage. The local A&E was inundated with Bugaboo related injuries (severed limbs and such like) until I finally moved onto the next stage which, in my case, involved revisiting denial. Injuries continued to rise exponentially in my neighbourhood, the difference being I was unaware that it was me inflicting them. I yearned for someone, like Emer in "After the Rain", to hold my hand through the ravages of loss. I wanted to be cajoled by fiction not confronted by facts.
That Mary would finish her book was never in doubt. She was driven by truth, not market forces. Its publication, coinciding with her diagnosis of terminal cancer was a cruel twist of fate. One of Mary’s gifts as a writer was her ability to take the reader with her. Her style is unpretentious, her language accessible. Like Mary herself, there’s nothing show offy about her writing. It’s always about the story, rather than the storyteller. When I read Mary’s books, I can hear her voice. Her humility, honesty and warmth. A woman comfortable in her own skin, with nothing to prove to anyone.
Before becoming a successful author, Mary McCarthy was my English teacher. For five years of my life, her laconic, anarchic, dark humour illuminated my days. The drudgery of going to a convent school, where conformity and deference were the order of the day, was made tolerable by Miss McCarthy’s English class. Although I was never a star pupil (I used to think syntax was something to be purchased in the toiletries section of Superquinn), Mary McCarthy made me believe I could do something special with words (the fact that I haven’t as yet is no reflection on Mary).
I remember being terrified one day, waiting for essays to be returned. I found the title Mary set uninspiring so, out of sheer boredom, I turned it into an acronym and based my essay on the words created from that instead. I hoped the fact that it was funny might save me from the rolled eyes treatment but resigned myself to being failed. I broke the rules, I knew the score. When she made me stand up and read my essay out to the class, my knees were shaking. Afterwards she furrowed her brows and berated, "Your grammar is shocking, the spelling's shoddy. Otherwise, it's absolutely brilliant!" Those words formed an indelible shield behind which I gradually grew as a writer. No-one had ever told me I was brilliant at anything before. It was a defining, life changing moment for a girl from the "wrong" side of The Liffey.
I bumped into Mary in one of Dublin’s oldest watering holes, Doheny & Nesbitts about 10 years after leaving school. She looked straight at me (well as straight as you can when you’re half cut) and said my name, followed by the adjective she filed next to it: “Cheeky!” When we met again eight years ago, we hit it off and stayed in touch ever since. It’s during that time I realised how many lives Mary had touched. Thousands of her ex pupils have sought her out over the years. She talked about them as if they were her children. She was immensely proud of us all. Mary McCarthy was a gifted teacher. She instilled confidence and inspired rebelliousness in thought and spirit. In the words of her idol, George Harrison, “Everything you think is possible, if you believe”. R.I.P Mary, that is, Remember In Pride, the legacy you left behind.
Friday, 3 May 2013
Sweatshops Exist Because We Allow Them to
The collapse of the Dhaka building last week, killing at over 1,000 people, was a catastrophe waiting to happen. Public fury was directed at Primark, and rightly so, but few of our high street brands can claim the moral high ground. In fact, none of us can.
How many of us know where the products we use on a daily basis come from, or whether they’re ethically produced? Do we know if the corporation that produces them is a member of the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), which, in theory, provides protection for overseas workers? (I say, “in theory”, because Primark is an ETI member, which counted for nothing in Dhaka). This highlights the need, not just for the policies, but to ensure they’re being implemented and monitored.
The existence of sweatshops and the proclivity of corporations to put profits before the interests of people and the planet is not new. Last month, the retailer Zara was accused of using sweatshops to produce their garments in Argentina. An investigation by The Argentinian Heath and Safety Association allegedly found evidence of child exploitation and holding children against their will.
A few years ago Top Shop was accused of producing garments made in sweat shops and of failing to protect vulnerable overseas employees. Yet, Sir Philip Green continues to resist calls to sign up to the ETI (unless he’s done so without my knowledge, in which case I would of course proffer a full apology). There’s also that nasty business of Sir Green’s alleged tax avoidance shenanigans. The more said about that the better, but that’s a whole other posting.
Despite PepsiCo producing, what has been described as misogynistic and, “arguably the most racist commercial in history” this week, profits are unlikely to take much of a hit. Ad agencies commonly employ foetuses (mostly male) in order to stay “on trend” and be down with the yoof. Yet, this ad is a throw back to the 50’s. An era wherein glorifying violence against women and employing cringeworthy racist stereotyping was deemed a competitive sport. That’s the problem with people who aren’t even born yet making ad campaigns. They inhabit an impenetrable bubble and think Mad Men is aspirational.
Ford’s recent ad in India, depicting scantily clad women gagged and tied in the boot of a car, is another example of male foetal disconnect with a world where women actually exist. Sometimes even fully clothed and driving a car, but not a Ford obviously. If Ford wanted women to buy their cars, they’d hardly portray them in such a demeaning, abusive manner now would they?
The pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline (producers of Lucozade, Ribena, Macleans and, according to the BBC’s Panorama, dodgy trial data), has been accused of using black orphans in New York as guinea pigs for testing Aids drugs. The aforementioned Panorama Programme also raised concerns about the drug Seroxat (used in the treatment of depression in children) being linked to aggression, suicide and dependency. GSK was allegedly aware of some of these dangers for a number of years but withheld crucial information from the public domain, only publishing trials that showed positive outcomes.
Workers in third world countries, where their rights are non existent and regulation negligible, are easy targets for unscrupulous multinationals. British American Tobacco and others are being sued in Nigeria over allegations that they targeted underage minors to increase smoking rates in the country. It’s alleged the companies sponsored pop concerts, sporting events and even gave away free cigarettes to entice minors into the habit. Smoking is said to be responsible for more deaths worldwide than HIV/Aids. With depleting sales in The West, children in third world countries make easy prey for global predators.
Another serial offender is Nestle, a company that courts bad publicity in the way Pete Doherty approaches personal hygiene – with reckless abandon. Unlike Doherty, Nestle has proven quite impervious to even the most scathing of criticism. It’s accused of persistently flouting international regulations by marketing baby formula in countries, such as Africa where, due to poor sanitation, bottle feeding is unsafe due to water quality. Nestle is also part of a cohort of chocolate producers who source much of their cocoa from the unregulated market of West Africa. Last year it was reported that an independent investigation by The Fair Labour Association found Nestle in breach of numerous child labour regulations.
Yet, we continue to line the pockets of morally bankrupt companies. It’s our insatiable, unquestioning hunger, be it for chocolate or being seen sporting the “right” brands, that fuels exploitation. In order to break the pervasive cycle of abuse we cannot remain oblivious, and/or indifferent, to the hidden human cost of our brands. If we want the blight of modern day slavery to stop, we have to pay a price.
Fairtrade products can provide an ethical alternative but they too have come in for legitimate criticism. For not doing more for the poorest of the poor, for example. Small farmers who don’t have the numbers required to form a co-operative (a condition of Fairtrade accreditation) lose out. It’s also alleged that only 5% of revenue made from Fairtrade products in the West comes back to the farmers. A fair question then is, why pay over the odds for a Fairtrade product when so little makes its way back to the producers?
Fairtrade is a noble principle but we must hold the brand accountable for its practice, in the same way we would the corporations. Whether it’s Make Poverty History (accused of sourcing wrist bands from sweatshops) or Fairtrade, we can’t be complacent. As long as we fill our baskets with tainted wares, corporations have no reason to change the way they operate.
How many of us know where the products we use on a daily basis come from, or whether they’re ethically produced? Do we know if the corporation that produces them is a member of the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), which, in theory, provides protection for overseas workers? (I say, “in theory”, because Primark is an ETI member, which counted for nothing in Dhaka). This highlights the need, not just for the policies, but to ensure they’re being implemented and monitored.
The existence of sweatshops and the proclivity of corporations to put profits before the interests of people and the planet is not new. Last month, the retailer Zara was accused of using sweatshops to produce their garments in Argentina. An investigation by The Argentinian Heath and Safety Association allegedly found evidence of child exploitation and holding children against their will.
A few years ago Top Shop was accused of producing garments made in sweat shops and of failing to protect vulnerable overseas employees. Yet, Sir Philip Green continues to resist calls to sign up to the ETI (unless he’s done so without my knowledge, in which case I would of course proffer a full apology). There’s also that nasty business of Sir Green’s alleged tax avoidance shenanigans. The more said about that the better, but that’s a whole other posting.
Despite PepsiCo producing, what has been described as misogynistic and, “arguably the most racist commercial in history” this week, profits are unlikely to take much of a hit. Ad agencies commonly employ foetuses (mostly male) in order to stay “on trend” and be down with the yoof. Yet, this ad is a throw back to the 50’s. An era wherein glorifying violence against women and employing cringeworthy racist stereotyping was deemed a competitive sport. That’s the problem with people who aren’t even born yet making ad campaigns. They inhabit an impenetrable bubble and think Mad Men is aspirational.
Ford’s recent ad in India, depicting scantily clad women gagged and tied in the boot of a car, is another example of male foetal disconnect with a world where women actually exist. Sometimes even fully clothed and driving a car, but not a Ford obviously. If Ford wanted women to buy their cars, they’d hardly portray them in such a demeaning, abusive manner now would they?
The pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline (producers of Lucozade, Ribena, Macleans and, according to the BBC’s Panorama, dodgy trial data), has been accused of using black orphans in New York as guinea pigs for testing Aids drugs. The aforementioned Panorama Programme also raised concerns about the drug Seroxat (used in the treatment of depression in children) being linked to aggression, suicide and dependency. GSK was allegedly aware of some of these dangers for a number of years but withheld crucial information from the public domain, only publishing trials that showed positive outcomes.
Workers in third world countries, where their rights are non existent and regulation negligible, are easy targets for unscrupulous multinationals. British American Tobacco and others are being sued in Nigeria over allegations that they targeted underage minors to increase smoking rates in the country. It’s alleged the companies sponsored pop concerts, sporting events and even gave away free cigarettes to entice minors into the habit. Smoking is said to be responsible for more deaths worldwide than HIV/Aids. With depleting sales in The West, children in third world countries make easy prey for global predators.
Another serial offender is Nestle, a company that courts bad publicity in the way Pete Doherty approaches personal hygiene – with reckless abandon. Unlike Doherty, Nestle has proven quite impervious to even the most scathing of criticism. It’s accused of persistently flouting international regulations by marketing baby formula in countries, such as Africa where, due to poor sanitation, bottle feeding is unsafe due to water quality. Nestle is also part of a cohort of chocolate producers who source much of their cocoa from the unregulated market of West Africa. Last year it was reported that an independent investigation by The Fair Labour Association found Nestle in breach of numerous child labour regulations.
Yet, we continue to line the pockets of morally bankrupt companies. It’s our insatiable, unquestioning hunger, be it for chocolate or being seen sporting the “right” brands, that fuels exploitation. In order to break the pervasive cycle of abuse we cannot remain oblivious, and/or indifferent, to the hidden human cost of our brands. If we want the blight of modern day slavery to stop, we have to pay a price.
Fairtrade products can provide an ethical alternative but they too have come in for legitimate criticism. For not doing more for the poorest of the poor, for example. Small farmers who don’t have the numbers required to form a co-operative (a condition of Fairtrade accreditation) lose out. It’s also alleged that only 5% of revenue made from Fairtrade products in the West comes back to the farmers. A fair question then is, why pay over the odds for a Fairtrade product when so little makes its way back to the producers?
Fairtrade is a noble principle but we must hold the brand accountable for its practice, in the same way we would the corporations. Whether it’s Make Poverty History (accused of sourcing wrist bands from sweatshops) or Fairtrade, we can’t be complacent. As long as we fill our baskets with tainted wares, corporations have no reason to change the way they operate.