Monthly Archives: September 2016

Monsanto Tribunal missing the bus?

Posted on by
There is a Monsanto Tribunal in The Hague in mid October, where world’s notable Monsanto haters are tentatively expected to be present.

 

It looks like a grand event. The concept is novel. A group of international judges will sit and hear presentations from a number of International notables, about the crimes of Monsanto. The judges will then pass judgment, even if it is symbolic. At the end of the two day affair, the international participants are supposed to get a sort of legal expertise and guideline on how Monsanto might be legally challenged in different countries, and prevented from further damaging the planet.

The participants are who is who in the global list of folks that one way or another have resisted either Monsanto directly, or the biotech industry, and are sort of well known in the field. Names such as Seralini or Kruger from Europe, Vandana Shiva from India, Shiv Chopra & Percy Schmeiser from Canada, Steve Marsh from Australia, Don Huber & Stephanie Seneff from the US are in the provisional agenda, and are expected to present their evidence to the judges, on Monsanto’s wrongdoings. Even a few ambassadors are to be in attendance.

While I wish this endeavour all success, I could not help notice that the whole thingamajig  essentially misses the bus.

Monsanto has been used as a convenient punching bag by all sorts of organizations and people, without much success. To me, targeting Monsanto is what the Biotech Industry would like us to do. Why ? Because such an effort will always be little more than symbolic. Further court cases against Monsanto will only enrich a few legal pockets. Why? Because Monsanto does not necessarily break the law, but rather influences Governments to bend the rules to favour the corporation. In fact, the only legal cases that have sort of succeeded, and thus provided some jurisprudence in the GM technology issue have been against Governments and not against Monsanto.

Monsanto is just a corporation and most Corporations will do whatever it can, to make a profit, irrespective of the human or environmental Cost. In that, it is not very different from the Pharma industry that wishes to push unnecessary vaccines down your throat, or corporations like Nestle that might wish to grab pubic water, oil giants wanting to steal someones fossil fuel reserve, or the military industrial complex pushing armaments across the world and promoting continuous warfare.

The real culprit and the root of all these evils, including that of Monsanto, is political corruption in Government. It might start with Obama downwards in the US, Trudeau down in Canada, and so on. It is our Governments that are suspected of working against the interest of the people, and passing laws that allow free reign to corporations including Monsanto.

Therefore, without any mention at all of Government level political corruption, this entire Tribunal, to me, is a waste of time, and an effort to keep the public barking up the wrong tree.

When a the problem is rooted in political corruption and an onset of fascism, it can only be solved by grabbing this rotten political bull by the horn. It is my belief that ecocide will not be stopped by lawyers targeting Monsanto. It will, if at all, be done by the people going after corrupt Governments.

I wish the wise people attending this tribunal will ponder on that, and perhaps let the attendees know that a mock tribunal is, after all, only a mock one. As long as it keeps targeting Monsanto, and keeps focus away from corrupt politicians and irresponsible Governments – nothing will change, and this tribunal itself will be little more than a pompous circus and an attempt to misguide the people. And misguided is exactly what corrupt politicians, Governments, Monsanto and the biotech lobby would like people to be.

9-11 and people’s rights vs politician’s rights

Posted on by

Here are a few questions that come up in my mind.
The bill is to allow victims of the 9-11 attack to sue Saudi Arabian Government over claims it might have aided or financed the terrorism attacks.

Such a bill, passed through Senate, has been vetoed by President Obama. Now the bill has gone back to the House and the Senate. The Senate has voted to override the President’s objection.
I believe it will also be taken up in the House, for a similar override.

What puzzles me are a few issue:

1) President Obama reportedly vetoed the bill because, it is reported, that he is concerned that allowing such lawsuits would open the door to legal challenges against American officials in other countries. What I don’t get is – if the victims have justifiable claims (to be investigated by an US court) of someone greatly harming US citizens, that effort is being squashed so that foreign courts cannot also pursue possible great harm being done to non-US citizens by US politicians or officials ? Are protecting American politicians from possible collusion in mass murder so important that US citizen’s own protection can be overridden ?

2) The Senate vote was very lopsided and bipartisan, with 97 persons out of 100 voting to override the President. Out of the remaining three, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid cast the only “No” Vote. Two others abstained – Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Bernie Sanders, D-Vt.

Harry Reid

My view on this is, Harry Reid’s vote perhaps shows the position of the Democratic Party, i.e. they will protect US politician’s rights to cause mayhem abroad, over US citizen’s rights to protection of their life in USA.

Tim Kaine

But the two that perhaps cleverly avoided voting and taking sides on the issue, and sat on the fence are very telling. The first is Hillary Clinton’s running mate Tim Kaine. The other is Bernie Sanders, the so called great champion of the downtrodden voters that was beaten, perhaps unfairly and corruptly, by Hillary Clinton, and who is now wholly supportive of Clinton for the current presidential election.

Bernie Sanders

My question to both would be – why did you abstain? Why are you scared to show where you stand? Are you, by simply not voting, not disclosing that you too, are supportive of the the system that puts US politicians above the law, even at the expense of the common man, but would not like people to recognize you as a betrayer of the people?

I hope the Senate and the House will override President Obama as many times as the law calls for, till the people get the right to sue Saudi Arabia. This is not about Saudi Arabia. If they were not guilty then the court will declare them innocent and absolve them from responsibility or penalty.

This is about people’s rights over politician’s rights. This is about questions on if USA has a democracy by the people, or a dictatorship in disguise.