Concerning the tragedy in Bangladesh

What questions do you ask before you open your wallet?

The most challenging response I have read to the tragedy in Bangladesh, written by Michele O'Neil, entitled 'Is there blood on your t-shirt?' It asks why...

"...do we accept in 2013 that for the sake of fashion or a bargain 

we turn a blind eye to the truth of the labour behind the label?" 

The human cost of the tragedy is evident in the images and testimony from Dhaka. Yet this will fade, just as all the tragedy that turns the 24-hour news cycle fades, unless we acknowledge that we are complicit in the events unfolding.

Forget democratic notions of one vote, one voice. Too many people feel disenfranchised and powerless to act when they believe that chance occurs only once every three years. Your vote, your opinion, on so many issues affecting our world, is cast every day when you open your wallet and pay for goods and services.

Marketing Corporate Responsibility...

I chose to petition K-mart after I heard of the factory collapse in Dhaka. Not because they're the worst; I hadn't even heard their name associated with the factory that collapsed. I chose K-mart because I knew I had t-shirts in a drawer that I had bought from K-mart with 'Made in Bangladesh' on the label. My purchase had made me complicit in their actions.

K-mart's website is all red, white and blue and happy, smiling faces. I doubt it's meant to be patriotic, just presenting a consistent, positive brand. Moving beyond the shopping aspect of the site (they are a retailer after all) K-mart presents an image of active, civic minded, corporate responsibility.

Corporate responsibility is probably the first thing to get our heads around. Companies like K-mart are legal entities which these days gives them many of the rights and responsibilities of people. Generally it seems they take these rights and responsibilities seriously. This is because it allows them to make a stack of money, but also because they can be held responsible if someone is hurt or injured.

Amongst K-mart's good deeds is a partnership with the 'Half the Sky' foundation. They do fantastic work supporting women's rights and I've written about them before.

K-mart also provides the outline of their 'Ethical Sourcing Code' on their website. This code is frequently referred to in discussing their business practices. It outlines standards for employment, fairness, health and safety, generally as thorough a range of protections that you could hope for. K-mart also refers to compliance with local laws and standards as well as auditing.

I believe K-mart and the sincerity of the declarations made on their website. I believe them not because I think they are all fundamentally wonderful human beings, but because they have a smiling, happy brand to protect. Without checking every website of every brand in my wardrobe I would guess they all have similar ethical standards for sourcing garments. Dead workers is just bad marketing.

And yet tragedies like Dhaka still occur.

Do I Just go Naked?

If I believe the intentions but also acknowledge the reality how can I ever go shopping again?

I've heard op-shopping suggested as an alternative. While better than joining a nudist colony I find many hipster shirts just don't fit my broad shoulders. Increasingly they are also recent cast offs from the stores we're still interrogating.

Honestly I'm not sure about the answer here.

What I do know is that more than any government or international police agency, massive corporations like Wesfarmers (the parent company of K-mart) have the ability to go into a country and exert influence on the ground. They have this power because they have money to invest.

Corporations choose countries like Bangladesh because the relatively low labour costs keep their overheads down. Even without touching labour costs a corporation like Wesfarmers can improve conditions by demanding contractors and factory owners sign up to documents like the 'Bangladesh Fire and Building Safety Agreement'. Standards like this might help prevent another building collapse.

Corporations aren't just going to do this on their own though. Remember, their marketing campaign already has us thinking they're great. As consumers we have to demand these extra steps be taken. If they don't we take our dollars somewhere they will.

Once they've done it make them tell us too. I can find coffee easily enough that will sell me on it's human rights credentials. Why not clothing?

I'm not sure how this could be implemented, but with many consumers making decisions in the store we need more transparency and information available. All our purchases are suspect as long as we continue to make them in ignorance.

Remember every one of those purchases is a vote you can cast about the world you want to live in.    

_________________

Here's the letter I wrote to K-mart:

"To whom it may concern,

I'm writing today to enquire about K-mart's sourcing and production of garments.

In the aftermath of the tragic factory collapse in Bangladesh I investigated and found that several t-shirts I had purchased at K-mart outlets were 'Made in Bangladesh'. 

I feel terrible that it has taken an incident of this magnitude to make me more aware of the conditions under which my clothes are made. Today I would like to ask you some questions that will shape my future opinions and shopping habits at K-mart.  

In researching these issues I found many encouraging things about K-mart's corporate civic standards. 

I note that K-mart is an 'official partner' of the Half the Sky foundation. The work of Half the Sky offers fantastic opportunities for women in developing countries and I applaud your support for such a worthy organisation.

In my research I also discovered information about K-mart's 'Ethical Sourcing Code'. My reading of this code suggests that K-mart applies high standards throughout the supply chain. 

One criticism I have heard leveled against garment retailers is that the supply chain is being increasingly outsourced. The rationale seems to be that 'subcontractors' and in-country manufacturers then bear the brunt of responsibility and blame when abuses and accidents occur.

I have also heard numerous criticisms about the lack of transparency of many Australian fashion retailers. At present I have been unable to discover any public comments by K-mart about any manufacturing in Bangladesh.

Your ethical sourcing code makes reference to independent auditing and compliance with local codes (building etc.) Yet it does not seem at all clear to me that this process is not open to the corruption that is an open secret in countries such as Bangladesh.

The thoughts I have offered you today came after a significant amount of research. Many consumers do not have the time or inclination to do this. For some that means continuing to shop at K-mart regardless of your supply-chain practices. For others it will mean dropping your brand for other more transparent brands.

I would like to challenge you today on two points:
- Will you endeavor to make sourcing information on ethical fashion shopping easier? Just as we now have information about our food (eggs, coffee, chocolate etc.) so to should we have easy access to information on our clothing.
- Secondly will K-mart (and your parent company Wesfarmers) sign on to the Bangladesh Fire and Building Safety Agreement? Though you may not have been part of the problem in the building collapse in Dhaka, you have a unique opportunity to lead the way in being part of the solution.

Corporate entities such as Wesfarmers are able to exert influence across borders in a way politicians and individuals cannot. Globalism doesn't have to be a dirty word. Please use your influence to change the situation of workers on whom your brand success is founded.

Sincerely
Andrew Pople"

It's not illegal to seek asylum.

The state of the asylum seeker debate in Australia continues in it's deplorable state. Too many people still languish in detention centers both on the Australian mainland and offshore. Recently a group of Sri Lankan asylum seekers were sent home after facing 'enhanced screening' of their status.

One aspect of the debate that seems to be worsening is the misinformation and outright lies used by the federal opposition to bolster it's pseudo-policy on immigration.

Tony Abbott and members of the federal opposition continue in their use of the term 'illegal' to describe people seeking asylum from Australia. This despite Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that states:

"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."

This how we count Tony - That's Better!

Australia is a signatory to the UDHR. Australia is also a party to the United Nations Refugee Convention. This guarantees an individuals rights to seek asylum. Any politicians statements to the contrary are a feeble attempt to manipulate the debate for political point scoring.

It is an irrefutable fact that there is a continued, increasing series of arrivals by boat of people seeking asylum. These people are the victims of the tumultuous global situation. That's a polite way of saying that throughout the world there is war, civil conflicts and the ethnic cleansing of minority groups. People fear these things. They fear the death and far worse they fear the savagery, the rape and the torture that are fast becoming the everyday staple of our evening news.

Our news is their lives.

Australia does not suffer from war. Though we know violence, it is nothing like the scale that other countries experience. If we are the destination of choice for refugees it is not because of any policy a government does or does not enact. It is because we appear safe. 

Abbott continues to proclaim the dangerous policy of turning back asylum seeker boats. This despite his own admission that the process would be dangerous for asylum seekers as well as Australian Defense Force personnel. A former defense force chief has even suggested turning back boats in international waters could constitute an act of piracy.

Does the public allow this rhetoric of 'toughness' because it believes the lie that seeking asylum is somehow illegal?

If so then it is the duty of all Australians to inform themselves on the issue. If you're reading this you've got the information in front of you - now do something with it.

Tell your friends. Call them out when they repeat the lies they've heard in the media. Best of all help correct the political opinion; because politicians only spout this nonsense because they think it's what we want to hear. If they thought there were votes in a more humanitarian refugee policy we'd be building integration centers not detention centers...

__________________

For further information about asylum seekers and their rights please check out the Refugee Council of Australia. You can also contact them on: admin@refugeecouncil.org.au.

If you'd like to take action on the issue of asylum seekers you can write a letter expressing your views. It's important that the government and opposition knows the views of it's constituents and knows that we won't stand for further lies. Contact:

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Brendan O'Connor

Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Scott Morrison

Responses...

Several explosions occurred in the American city of Boston yesterday. Reports indicate three people have died and more than a hundred injured.

After searching more than a dozen news sites from around the world that is all I can say with confidence about the event that is being called the 'Boston Bombing'.

Some sources report two explosions, others speculate a third in a library nearby. Most report three deaths from the explosions, though one reports a dozen killed. All agree there are many people injured but some describe amputated limbs and 'pools of blood'. With so much confusion regarding the basic facts of this terrible event it is unlikely the full truth will be known for many days.

Yet many people are quick, even eager to apportion blame.

The New York Post appears to be leading this trend, identifying a suspect who may not even exist. The ephemeral suspect was identified only by racial and religious traits, do I even need to repeat them? The origins of this report seem to stem from reports that the Boston police are questioning a man being treated for injuries at a local hospital. I would be willing to speculate that Boston police are questioning many people who were at the scene of the explosions.

It is important for law enforcement officials to make inquiries, develop theories and investigate these theories to ultimately apprehend the perpetrator of a crime. This is their job and there are systems in place to ensure it is done fairly and hopefully in an unbiased way. The rest of us engage in speculation and (conspiracy) theorizing out of some sort of macabre need to connect with the tragedy that is unfolding. Often this connection involves pushing a racist, nationalist or sexist agenda not warranted by the facts.

Twitter comes alive during an event of this magnitude. Amidst the stream of citizen reportage their is always an undercurrent of those pushing their own prejudiced agenda.

Policymic writer Elizabeth Plank, tweeting as @feministabulous compiled as list of the top ten most racist tweets to come out of the Boston events: the tweets listed include pejorative statements about muslims, arab peoples, gay people and even Barack Obama. Were it not for the seriousness of the events in Boston these tenuous links would almost be amusing.

Meanwhile filmmaker Michael Moore spruiked his own agenda. Tweets he released after the event imply conservative, right wing involvement including that of the American Tea Party movement.

Seemingly fanning the flames of anti-muslim sentiment the head of an extremist Jordanian Muslim Salafi group is reported by the Washington Post as saying he was happy and drawing the comparison that American blood is no more precious than Muslim blood spilled in conflicts.

To what end these personal attacks that often barely reach beyond local networks?

Certainly they do nothing to enhance the reportage of the actual event. To the contrary they spawn their own cottage industry that I'm going to dub 'crazy shit you're glad someone else said'. Nor do they assist those investigating the events. This may be a little less clear to these arm chair commentators. Perhaps they hope that by digitally screaming 'kill all {insert stereotype here}' from the cyber rooftops they are somehow making the streets safer. All I see is an inflaming of fear and hatred.

I doubt anyone knows the correct response to a tragic event such as that unfolding in Boston. Our American-voyeurism seems to demand some sort of response but why?

@adilray tweeted after the events - "Thoughts with families of 2 dead in bomb blasts in Boston, 8 in Afghanistan, 1 in Pakistan and 31 in Iraq today. Global terror. Sad times."

This is the truth of the matter: explosions kill people throughout the world daily. Today we're paying attention only because it's America. Watch if you want to, mourn, offer condolences but don't speculate. Or if you must, shut up about it...