Child Labour and the Gap

Gap has, once again, been exposed for poor labour practices. Gap has been plagued with questionable labour practices since the 1990s when they were first exposed for using sweatshop workers who were paid 30 cents an hour to make Gap clothing. More recently Gap has come under fire when the Observer newspaper from England exposed the Gap for using child slave labour. The Observer reported on a child slave who had been working for four months without pay and would not be allowed to leave the job until the fee his family had received was repaid. Another boy of 12 said children were beaten if bosses thought they were not working hard enough. The Gap just can't resist cheap labour in order to increase profits. When will companies wake up to the marketing of fair business practices? These negative reports continue to have detrimental effects on Gap stock.

Gap, which has made commitments not to use child labour, said that only one item - a girl's smock blouse - was involved. The Gap responded to the revelation by saying that the smock blouse will not be offered for sale in the company's 3,000 stores around the world, Gap said, and instead will be destroyed.

I find it shocking that Gap's response to the use of child labour in India is to destroy the items that were produced by these workers. It would be nice to see a response that is more proactive and less wasteful of this opportunity. Perhaps Gap could use the opportunity to bring attention to the plight of indentured child labourers and promote itself as an advocate working towards solutions to address indentured child labour.

Since these products have already been produced, why not sell them with 100% of the proceeds going toward the payment required for securing these children's release from their indentured status. Obviously, Gap would thereafter end its working relationship with the factory/factories involved.

I just think that Gap should think beyond 'saving face' by destroying the garments (seems like such a waste, and doesn't really help the children), and try to think in terms of turning a bad situation into a positive opportunity. I'm sure there is some legal reason stopping such action, but wouldn't it be nice to see?

New Iran Sanctions

On Thursday (Oct. 25) the US slapped new sanctions on the Iranian regime’s elite military force, referred to as the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). They are said to be the harshest against the country in the past 30 years, and it is the first time the US has imposed sanctions on a military unit of another state. Aside from the historical and legal significance of the move, 3 full days have gone by in Iran, and the Iranian regime has been so psychologically astounded that it has banned public comments on the sanctions until further notice.

Here at home, two types of reactions have resulted from the sanctions. One argues that the sanctions are a prelude to military conflict. But, this is a hasty conclusion and it mostly takes historical parallels as its evidence. But, even if the American administration wanted to attack Iran, in the medium-to-long-term it simply cannot wage another full-scale attack. And, there is a lot of debate still raging in Washington regarding the effectiveness of small-scale strikes on the Iranian regime’s nuclear facilities.

The other type of reaction is more sophisticated. It says that although it’s late, it’s nonetheless necessary, but not at all sufficient.

It’s late because for the past two-and-a-half decades, the IRGC has been known to carry out terrorist activities all over the world, from Argentina to the Balkans, and from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia and the Horn of Africa.

The move is necessary because the IRGC is a significant actor (economically, politically, socially) in Iran. And, this stems from its role within the state. Its mandate is to safeguard the rule of the mullahs, by suppressing opposition at home and exporting their fundamentalist ideology abroad. In the economic sphere, the IRGC is reported to control more than half of the country’s exports and imports, netting multi-billion dollar profits each year, in order to fund the nuclear weapons program and the regime’s nefarious activities especially in Iraq and Palestine.

Moreover, the IRGC has been taking an increasingly dominant political role. The regime’s madcap president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a former member of the IRGC, and so were/are the nuclear negotiators, Ali Larijani (who was recently fired – not resigned) and Saeed Jalili (the current negotiator).

But, although the recent designations and sanctions are necessary in order to hamper Iranian efforts to export and consolidate Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Mideast, they are scantly sufficient. The US should convince its allies, especially, the EU to follow suit. The Americans should also designate the entire IRGC as a terrorist organization. Such policies strengthen diplomacy, and must therefore be broadened to include tougher sanctions at the UNSC.

But, far more importantly, married to such firm policies, the Americans should support the Iranian people’s aspirations for a free and democratic Iran. Let’s not forget that the Iranian people have been waging a steadfast fight to bring down the mullahs, sacrificing 120,000 of their sons and daughters to this end. It's time to have a dialogue with the Iranian people, not with those who murder them.

Pro Life... Pro Choice???

So the Council of Europe held their first anti-death penalty day a couple of weeks ago. Interesting day to celebrate, I guess they feel bad about the things done in the past. For those who are unaware, in order to join the EU, a state must change their internal laws in order to prohibit the death penalty. This anti-death penalty day was held in conjunction with the global anti-death penalty day, which is led by the Global Coalition Against the Death Penalty.

The only dissenting voice in the EU was Poland. Their argument was, the EU cannot justify being pro-life for convicted prisoners and pro-choice for euthanasia and abortion. Poland was the only member state to oppose an EU-sponsored European Day Against the Death Penalty, with Deputy Justice Minister Andrzej Duda saying the EU "should approach the subject in a broader way and debate the protection of all life".

The Council for Europe secretary said, "We know that there are many people in Europe who continue to support the death penalty... We need to go out and explain to people why the death penalty is wrong." Interesting that they want to enlighten people on this subject, but when Poland or other Christian groups want to tell people about abortion or euthanasia, they are labeled "right-wing" radicals.

Our Favorite Show 24

I love 24. It is really entertaining, and always keeps me guessing. But I've also wondered about some of the subtle (or not so subtle) messages conveyed by the show. After all, Jack Bauer did actually saw someone's head off in one episode (I don't remember the season, and obviously they didn't show it visually, but this was part of the storyline). Call me crazy, but that's a bit extreme for American television.

The show is definitely part of an American media phenomenon I like to call "All Terror, All the Time". I remember a visit to the states (my home country) three years after 9/11 and being surprised that Fox News only seemed to ever discuss terrorism. As if nothing else was really relevant, or worth talking about. I think it's calmed down a bit, but as far as Fox is concerned, there are still security threats at every turn, behind every bush. "All Terror, All the Time." Fear is a powerful social tool. It works in Islam, it worked in the Communist world, and it can work against us too if we are not careful.

I found this article called "The Orwellian Ideology of 24" to be of interest.

Hey Big Spender

The BBC posed an excellent question concerning the 2008 presidential race, "The eye-popping sums raised by the 2008 US presidential contenders surely raise the question: what are they spending it on?" Did you know that contenders have already spent $80.6 million dollars? And this is pre-2008, when the campaigning normally begins! Don't worry about them running out of cash though, contenders still have plenty to spend (unless you are John McCain, who ran out of cash this summer):

Hillary Clinton (D) - $35m
Barack Obama (D) - $32m
John Edwards (D) - $12.4m
Rudolph Giuliani (R) - $11.6m
Mitt Romney (R) - $9.2m
Fred Thompson (R) - $7.1m

It causes one to wonder, if they spend like this now, how will they be when they get into office? Does this seem a little over the top to anyone else? Where are they getting all of this money and what conditions are tied to it?

A Deeper and Broader Morality

Sojourners magazine sent me this article. The author writes,

"I'm preparing for a dialogue with Richard Land at the FRC Action's Values Voter Summit tomorrow. This has caused me to reflect on how the definition of "moral values" has changed. Evangelical activism to protect God's creation is now publicly visible in a new way, including Christian concern over global warming. A host of other issues are now part of a broadened and deepened evangelical agenda—most connected to poverty, human rights, and social justice. Even American military and foreign policy has begun to come under critique by Christian scholars (including evangelicals), who focus on the ethics of war and the dubious morality of the U.S. response to terrorism. Slowly, even the media is reporting on the widening evangelical concern over human life and dignity."

I found the article interesting as it is reporting on a phenomenon that I identify with. It describes my journey of discovering the heart of God in new ways. I used to be very limited regarding which issues qualified as my "family values" and which did not make the list. But that has been changing. God has been showing me how important caring for the poor and protecting vulnerable members of society (both nationally and globally) is to Him. Social justice, fair wages, equality, dignity, respect for life. These are family values too.

How Will the 'Christian Right' Vote in 2008?

If it ends up being a choice between Rudy and Hillary, then that leaves Christian conservatives in a quandry. I'm a Christian and am pretty conservative in my values and ethics. These values I hold dear also mean that I'm more social-justice oriented in my ideas on regulation and restraint in a capitalist system. Jesus had a lot to say about caring for the poor, and the Bible in general has a lot to say about protecting the vulnerable. So, neither of these candidates are appealing to me.

What would draw me to vote Republican (values) is not evident in Rudy. Let's see, he's pro-choice, married 3 times, numerous extra-marital affairs, and famously lived with a homosexual couple. Not exactly a poster boy for family values. What would draw me to vote Democrat (social justice) is not evident in Hillary. She acts more like a neo-con than some Republicans in the way she votes in the Senate. Her big-money backing outdoes most Republicans who are always accused of being in bed with big business.

Seriously, this is going to be a bizarre election if these two end up on the ticket. Perhaps a third-party candidate or an independent will begin to look much more appealing...