Coke loses libel case against Sinaltrainal

by Janus Wed Feb 11, 2004 14:13

Chalk one up for the good guys.

by David - Coke Boycott Campaign maynooth Wed Feb 11, 2004 16:15

This couldn't have come sooner.
We need some strong evidence to counter the coalition of pure evil's (FG FF and PDs) lies and rhetoric

by kev Wed Feb 11, 2004 19:36

to an article about this? (in english)

by matthew - yfg Wed Feb 11, 2004 21:21

wait a minute.... is it just me or does that tiny wittle word there say...... LIBEL?

what does that mean??? Mmmmmmm i wonder.

its does not mean murder!
nor does it mean that because coca cola lost it that they are somehow guilty of murder!!!


wake up please

by David Wed Feb 11, 2004 22:28

n : a tort consisting of false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person v : make slanderous statements against

There you go Matt, anything else we can do for you? Do you also want me to explain what the words Truth, Honesty and Integrity mean?

How about Boycott?
n : a group's refusal to have commercial dealings with some organization in protest against its policies v : refuse to sponsor; refuse to do business with

or Ban?
n : A prohibition imposed by law or official decree.

Which one of these definitions do you think best describes the result of our referendum Campaign?

by Joe Thu Feb 12, 2004 11:23

Hey Matt I look forward to the YFG press release pointing out the same thing in relation to the recent high profile libel case in Ireland. When will it be out?

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - Lasc Thu Feb 12, 2004 11:30

As of yet there is no article available in English. As soon as one becomes available we will post one up.

As for the meaning of libel. It means that the leaders of Sinaltrainal will not spend two years in jail and there fore be deprived not only of their jobs but also the ability to actively campaign against what is happening at the coke plants in Colombia.

The libel case was nothing more than an attempt to silence the union and it has failed.

by iosaf Thu Feb 12, 2004 11:54

His appearance was protested by a wide range of deputies most notably from the Green, Marxist and Liberal parties.
They wore white scarves with the message "Peace and Justice for Colombia" in three languages.

Meanwhile, Coca Cola is to be further targetted for environmental concerns in Asia this year, a resolution voted and carried at the World Social forum 2004.

by David Thu Feb 12, 2004 17:46

http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Industries-envirn-resettlement/2002/coke2.htm

A province in India that used to be a thrivng agricultural community has been devestated in the last 5 years because of the activities of Coca-Cola. Many activists have been imprisoned for protesting the theft by coca-cola of their water supply and the subsequent poisoning of their land with toxic waste from their manufacturing process (which they had the gall to actually SELL to local farmers as a fertiliser)

by David Thu Feb 12, 2004 19:18

I'm Involved in the Pro Boycott campaign and I have a few things that I’d like to say to anybody who has seen allegations or had any contact with the Pro Coke lobby

1. The groups involved in the Killer Coke issue are the Global Awareness Society, members of Sinn Fein working in a personal capacity and a lot of non-Aligned individuals who are not members of any political parties. There is nobody from the greens or the Labour party active that I am aware of.

2. When people attack the Pro Coke "fact Sheet" essentially they are attacking Young Fianna Gael because it has been produced and distributed by them and crudely altered to make it appear like it is non political. Either this fact sheet included lies or whoever produced the fact sheet was incompetent. I suspect that initially the latter was the case but once those mistakes were pointed out and the information was still distributed it then turned into blatant lying. The fact sheet was produced in UCD by Michael Binchy who contacted Matt Bruton and provided this information to him. Michael must have known that the facts were untrue.
The Most Obvious inaccuracies were the statements that the "Columbian" (sic) Congress of Trade unions were against the Ban. This is not true. Yet the fact sheet manages to include this twice (it also says the CUT are against the ban, Matt Bruton did not realise that the CUT ARE the Colombian congress of trade unions)

There is also the issue of a quotation initially attributed to the Judge who presided over the hearings in Miami. When challenged as to where this quotation comes from Matt agreed that he did not know and that he could not find those words anywhere on the court transcript. Instead that same quotation was discovered on www.killercoke.com, coca-colas own PR website. Instead of deleting this quotation from his "fact sheet" like he agreed, just removed the source of the quote and has it sitting there in Italics as if it had any authority. When I challenge him as to where he is quoting from he says ~that’s just a quotation~ or ~somebody said it, I could be quoting myself~
This is an example of the integrity displayed by the individuals in the Pro Coke Campaign.

The Pro Coke Campaign is made up primarily by YFG members and it also includes a PD and a member of OFF. These people when questioned had not done any research into the issue themselves, when I asked them where they got their information from they said they were talking to Matt, Matt got his information from Michael Binchy and it has been proven how unreliable that information was.

Matt claims that a libel case is a civil matter and that it is meaningless. Maybe that is true in Ireland, but in Colombia it is a criminal issue that carries a jail sentence of up to 2 years. Civil cases do not include jail sentences. The fact that Coca-Cola lost that case (this is actually the second libel case that they have lost) is very meaningful. Basically for something to be libellous it has to be defamatory and untrue. If Sinaltrainal alleged that coca-cola are responsible for the death of trade unionists in Colombia and this was untrue then the libel case would have been black and white. However because the libel case was thrown out of court this implies that killer coke is not an inaccurate description of Coca-Cola and we can infer that Coke do have a case to answer.
If the Pro Coke campaign had integrity they would take out their "entirely unproven" "fact" from their "fact sheet"
Of course, I have no doubt that they will continue to use this inaccurate information as if it was a fact.

The Pro Coke Campaign claim to believe in democracy, yet they are actively campaigning for people to not sign the petition that is calling for a democratic referendum. Matt Bruton said in the YFG forum "I think we'll let the students decide on that one." yet he is preventing people from signing a petition that calls only for a democratic referendum. They claim that the petition calls for a ban of coke not a boycott (a distinction that apart from being insulting to the intelligence of the students is only a petty issue). Had he read the text of the petition he would see that the document people were signing mentioned neither boycott nor ban and that it was clearly written and could leave no confusion to anybody, until of course Matt Bruton and Fiachra from FF started confusing people by badgering students who were trying to sign the petition. "Know what you are signing" they say and then they give an account of something that bears no relation to the document.
The pro coke campaign has also been lying about the effect of the ban. They claim that it will also affect the canteen and will result in a complete ban of coke in the campus. This is untrue to the extreme and when challenged Matt claims he knows what our intentions are despite the fact that even if we wanted to get the canteen to ban coke we would find this an almost impossible task.

by interested Fri Feb 13, 2004 14:38

Are they the biggest Union? do they represent a majority of coke workers?

by UCD - Alan Sun Feb 15, 2004 00:51

seems like michael sent matt a copy of the manifesto for the second coke referendum. silly that seen as it was the easiest thing ever to campaign against. whatever about half lies or ambiguities, the utter lies that made up the majority of that information quite quickly begins to look rather silly when you point out to people the real facts. it was probably one of the major reasons the majority grew by 1000%. yfg should spend their time on something useful - like coming up with some actual thought-out policies instead of defending the indefensible.