[179] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
quick FTAA update...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Aimee L Smith)
Sun Apr 22 16:51:07 2001
Message-Id: <200104222048.QAA03495@nerd-xing.mit.edu>
To: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 16:48:15 -0400
From: Aimee L Smith <alsmith@MIT.EDU>
My firends who didn't get into Canada, (1 mit grad, 1 mit alum)
were completely frisked and had their car searched. Three
items were turned up which were a pocket-knife, a gas mask,
and a flag (a syndicalist flag.) The flag was confiscated
and the two were given a statement that said they were refused
entry to Canada due to their intent to commit crime. (Wearing
of any masks is technically illegal in Quebec, but this ancient
law is never enforced... but quite convenient to have such
a law on the books... so, they could not enter Canada.) If
you thought we had a "free trade zone" with Canada and an
"open" border, than why would two citizens be presumed criminals
for having a flag, a pocketknife and a gas-mask? Yes, some
anarchists do property damage, like dismantling a chunk of the
fence surrounding Quebec city to keep protesters out... but
some capitalists, some democrats, and some republicans also
do various forms of property destruction and other illegal
acts (many which are much worse in my view, s.a. rape), but
that doesn't mean the Canadians would stop someone going through
with a US flag... so much for freedom of assembly, innocent till
proven guilty, etc...
My one short comment on "Free Trade" agreements, s.a. FTAA:
If these were really about Free Trade, they would take about
1 page of text to lay out. Yet NAFTA was 2,200 pages. These
are Investors Rights agreements, that is why all the text because
the agreements are about how much autonomy foreign investors
can have over land, resources, etc in a country. When they
feel these "rights" are violated and their "right to future profits"
is hampered by an environmental regulation, for example, they
can sue the government of the offending company, s.a. with Ethyl
Corp getting $13 million from Canada for their banning of one of their
fuel additives that is believed to be a neurotoxin. Also, Metalclad
got $26 million from the Mexican govt due to a state law that forbid
them from making a toxic waste site on land they owned in that region.
Furthermore, if this had anything to do with freedom and not
corporate hegemony, these drafts would be available for citizen's
perusal... I mean how many people do you know that are against freedom?
But the fact that they are shrouded in secrecy as the corporate lawyers
draw them up means that these folks know they are on the take. And
when I say "corporate hegemony" don't think I am talking about all
corporate enterprises, as many and most smaller corporations correctly
recognize that these agreements are not designed in their interests
either. Corporations, capitalism, markets are one thing. Trade is
fine. But centralized tyrannies that have revenues larger than the GDP's
of most countries are something quite different and many people will
fight hard to prevent these say 1000 most powerful organizations from
dictating how much arsenic we should have in our drinking water, that
we should be forced into guinea pig status on the effects of genetically
modified food, and that we should risk irreversible catastrophic climate
change for the enrichment of very few. (My favorite late example
is the starLink corn fiasco...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37085-2001Mar7.html
High risk, high yield.
We socialize the risk financially, yet the yield goes to a few private
hands. (We the people are the ones exposed to the health risks, without
any consent on our part.) This is NOT what Adam Smith had in mind...
(Back to work...)
