EU bans seal products - should we retaliate?

[Wild Bill]

Here's the link;

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/...eu_seals_090505

"The European Parliament passed a bill Tuesday banning the import of seal products, a move that is expected to cripple the Canadian sealing industry."

For some time now I have been paying much closer attention to the country of origin of the products I buy. Mostly I've been concerned with food, since certain countries like China have shown they have some problems with inspection that have resulted in some epic problems.

Some of it has to do with being closer to the source in case of problems. If I have a problem with a Canadian product I have some hope of recourse. The same with something from America. However, if it came from "Elbonia" then I'm pretty well "euchred".

This seal product ban is different. It will have a devastating impact on some of my fellow Canadians. I have family in the Maritimes and have always felt the tie.

Except for Danny Williams, of course! He's repeatedly shown that he doesn't give a damn about me or anyone else not on the Rock so why should I care about him?

There are some great wines produced from British Columbia and also the Niagara Region. Not to mention Pelee Island.

It will be a start. I'll be coming up with lots more.

Anyone else have some feelings about this matter?

[Sir Bandelot]

Multinational corporations hide the country of origin for the ingredients in their products. If it says "Distributed by..." you can be sure its from outside of Canada, but thats all. I'm not sure but I suspect that even if something says "Product of Canada", like say its pasta, you don't know where all the ingredients come from. Was the wheat purchased from China? because with the global economy the raw ingredients can be purchased by the boat load at a cheaper price, then taken into the plant and refined, processed into noodles.

Anyway although I try to buy Canadian, its getting darn near impossible. Went to a clothing store recently and EVERY SINGLE ITEM was made in China. Well, maybe one or two from India. Welcome to the global economy, where we buy stuff made by slaves and child labourers, without regulations or pollution controls, so you can get a shirt that cost 5 cents to make, for $19.99.

In the new anti-globalist cultural movement people will stop buying their shit entirely, out of fear and repulsion for what it represents, and start making their own. We are seeing this anti-consumerism on the rise now. Don't buy stuff make it yourself. It takes longer, yes. So you must stop sitting around at night watching TV or playing video games. Unplug, turn off, get with it.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[Oleg Bach]

The liberal dog loving EU would not have a problem with seals if they looked like lobsters instead of sweet cow eyed puppies - what about the abuse and torment of pigeons? Hugh - if seals could fly and they crapped on the heads of girly Europeans they would be bashing them down with sticks - calling them the maggots of the skies...

[M.Dancer]

Funny how little we hear of the plight of geese....

Pate de fois gras anyone?

Not after you find out how it is made I'm sure...

[Wild Bill]

Funny how little we hear of the plight of geese....

Pate de fois gras anyone?

Not after you find out how it is made I'm sure...

Exactly!

Also, I agree with Sir Bandelot that it can be difficult to identify "country of origin", or even "origin of all the pieces". Still, as an individual I can only do what I can.

The question is, how many other Canadians feel as I do? We don't need a formal boycott organization. We can simply promote a trend or popular attitude that says "Do unto others as they do unto us!"

Don't get me wrong, I've always believed in the overall merit of Free Trade. However, too often the concept is corrupted by countries that rig the game in their favour and to our detriment. You cannot practice UNILATERAL Free Trade and expect to prosper! It just can't work that way.

Perhaps someone who thinks that everything is fair could explain to me how I can see Yugoslavian FRESH strawberries, obviously shipped by air, being sold in my supermarket MUCH cheaper than locally grown product?

The Europeans have been prone to rigging the game for generations, especially with their farming subsidies. Now in the interest of winning votes from the politically correct their politicians have grievously hurt some of our fellow Canadians.

Their action has seriously affected my own buying habits, within the limits of what I can do.

Anybody with me?

Edited May 5, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Oleg Bach]

Yah they force feed the poor thing...by stuffing it then half strangling it - this fattens the liver and cool French rich folks eat the liver fat on crackers while they are holding a glass of wine-- with the little finger pointing out towards Canada..saying how cruel Canada is - were they not the ones that invented that beheading device to get rid of smart people?

[Moonbox]

On the matter of seal hunting it's a mixed bag for me. On the one hand, it's kind of like fishing or any other sort of hunting.

On the other hand, it's not like fishing in that we're dealing with a higher and more 'aware' form of life. In terms of 'hunting' you can barely even call it that. Finding seals on land, often babies, and clubbing them before they can get into water is something that SHOULD offend the senses of most people.

Having said that, this is no better or worse than what happens on European fur farms, which kill more defenseless critters in a month than the seal hunt does in a year.

To ban seal products while allowing fur farming to continue is a joke and the EU should be ashamed. You don't ban products because the animal being killed is 'cute'.

[M.Dancer]

On the matter of seal hunting it's a mixed bag for me. On the one hand, it's kind of like fishing or any other sort of hunting.

On the other hand, it's not like fishing in that we're dealing with a higher and more 'aware' form of life.

Like cattle or pork?

In terms of 'hunting' you can barely even call it that. Finding seals on land, often babies, and clubbing them before they can get into water is something that SHOULD offend the senses of most people.

True it's deffernt than hunting..far more dangerous and they do not hunt babies.

[Oleg Bach]

Killing so-called Taliban - is similar - they are a less sophisticated life form...in the eyes of some. It just might be that macho primative thing that bugs our girly men...they behave like old fashioned proud men..where as our leaders behave like second rate females from a bygone era...maybe we should get parliment to start growing their hair long and create a wig industry...or even harvest nails...so the french could glue them on and be sweet and womanly - I say - stop killing seals and lets export the seals alive --send millions of the sweet little critters as pets to those sitting in cafes in Paris - they could wear live seals around their necks - It could be the latest craze!

[Moonbox]

Like cattle or pork?

In that I only make the dubious distinction that cattle and swine have 5000+ years of domestication and stupidity bread into them. I don't think the seal hunt is much worse than farming so long as they don't endanger the population levels.

True it's deffernt than hunting..far more dangerous and they do not hunt babies.

I don't think you read the rest of what I wrote. I'm not against the seal 'hunt'. I don't think it's a very 'sporting' hunt to club sea creatures that can barely move on land, that's all.

[M.Dancer]

I'm not against the seal 'hunt'. I don't think it's a very 'sporting' hunt to club sea creatures that can barely move on land, that's all.

Fair enough, something that isn't done for sport isn't very sporting...

[bush_cheney2004]

Fair enough, something that isn't done for sport isn't very sporting...

Yessir...'ain't never seen seal clubbing on Versus TV.

[Moonbox]

bad choice of words on my part again. I just don't think this sort of hunting is the same as stalking in the forests etc. Either way, there's nothing wrong with the seal hunt that isn't wrong with farming really.

[Dave_ON]

Honestly I think this is little more than EU protectionism to bolster their own fur trade under the guise of humane and rationale thought. I read the CBC article on this and these were two quotes that popped out at me.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labr...#socialcomments

"While we of course have sympathy for those particular groups of people, the reality is that we sit here in the European Parliament and that millions of our citizens would like us to do the right thing and ban the cruel trade. They do not want to buy these products," McCarthy said.

Yet earlier in the article it states.

Canada's East Coast seal hunt is the largest of its kind in the world, with an average annual kill of about 300,000 harp seals. It exported around $5.5 million worth of seal products to the EU in 2006.

So nobody wants to buy these products yet the EU alone imported 5.5 million worth of seal products? Something doesn’t add up.

The reality is one seal consumes a ridiculous amount of fish. With our fishing industry already under duress do to over fishing, largely from illegal European trolleys, we can't afford the additional strain. The only natural predator seals have other than humans of course, are Polar bears which largely don't venture in those regions and are themselves in decline. So what remains to be done? The only logical and rational solution is to cull the population ourselves. At least this way the animals are being put to use, in fact more so then any cow, pig or chicken that is harvested. If the products aren't sold the killing will still have to continue, the only difference will be the carcasses will be left to rot rather than be put to use.

All the EU ban will really achieve is to create a rather lucrative black market for seal products. Of course the legitimate seal hunters won't profit from this and the current regulations of not killing baby seals will be ignored because likely the baby pelts would sell for a higher price. When will the world learn that prohibition in its various and sundry forms do not work, it only creates an underground economy. All in all this only serves to further damage an already battered Atlantic economy, I seriously doubt our government will do anything to rectify the situation.

[Wild Bill]

I've decided on the first target of my personal boycott.

IKEA!

Always did get frustrated trying to figure out their damned instructions anyway...

[Machjo]

Here's the link;

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/...eu_seals_090505

"The European Parliament passed a bill Tuesday banning the import of seal products, a move that is expected to cripple the Canadian sealing industry."

For some time now I have been paying much closer attention to the country of origin of the products I buy. Mostly I've been concerned with food, since certain countries like China have shown they have some problems with inspection that have resulted in some epic problems.

Some of it has to do with being closer to the source in case of problems. If I have a problem with a Canadian product I have some hope of recourse. The same with something from America. However, if it came from "Elbonia" then I'm pretty well "euchred".

This seal product ban is different. It will have a devastating impact on some of my fellow Canadians. I have family in the Maritimes and have always felt the tie.

Except for Danny Williams, of course! He's repeatedly shown that he doesn't give a damn about me or anyone else not on the Rock so why should I care about him?

There are some great wines produced from British Columbia and also the Niagara Region. Not to mention Pelee Island.

It will be a start. I'll be coming up with lots more.

Anyone else have some feelings about this matter?

And what practical benefit would retaliation for the sake of retaliation bring us?

[Machjo]

But if we insist on retaliating, then let's at least make it on parallel grounds. For instance, they argue that they're banning sealskins on compassionate grounds. So if we're to retaliate, we'd need to find an issue on which they are also being cruel towards animals and ban that product in parallel, otherwise it would be mocked as just a childish tit-for-tat response.

Can anyone think of any compassion-based retaliation that would be worthy of a fit retaliation?

I don't know, how do they kill their frogs in France, or what about the Bull Festivals in Spain? Maybe we could nail them on something there?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

But if we insist on retaliating, then let's at least make it on parallel grounds. For instance, they argue that they're banning sealskins on compassionate grounds. So if we're to retaliate, we'd need to find an issue on which they are also being cruel towards animals and ban that product in parallel, otherwise it would be mocked as just a childish tit-for-tat response.

Can anyone think of any compassion-based retaliation that would be worthy of a fit retaliation?

I don't know, how do they kill their frogs in France, or what about the Bull Festivals in Spain? Maybe we could nail them on something there?

Stoop to their level? I think not, but perhaps we should merely rethink other areas of international interest. Those areas of political nature, we need to outsmart them.

[Machjo]

Funny how little we hear of the plight of geese....

Pate de fois gras anyone?

Not after you find out how it is made I'm sure...

There you go, ban fois gras on compassionate grounds? Bear in mind though that we'd have to stop producing it too.

[Machjo]

Stoop to their level? I think not, but perhaps we should merely rethink other areas of international interest. Those areas of political nature, we need to outsmart them.

That's why I'd started by 'If we insist'. Read my post before that one for my preferred option.

[Wild Bill]

And what practical benefit would retaliation for the sake of retaliation bring us?

None! That's not what I'm suggesting.

Retaliation in this instance is simply a games theory strategy. There are always those who twist the Golden Rule. They count on their opponent turning the other cheek. They take it for granted that they can break rules while their rival will be bound by them.

To persist in being a noble "boy scout" results in only one outcome. You lose! End of story.

Certain countries practice this philosophy all the time, particularly with trade. They will sign a deal to get you to take their exports and then find all sorts of sneaky ways to prevent your exports from getting a market in their country. There are very few American cars in Japan. Lots of weaselly reasons but the net result is Japan sells lots of cars to us and we sell mice nuts to them.

The Americans ship grapes across the Niagara river into Canada all the time. If our farmers try to ship product their way it is held for "inspections". The holding time is long enough to spoil the product.

The Europeans are probably the most subsidized farmers on the planet! With the highest rates of protectionism. Governments are too afraid of challenging their farmers. Look at the French. Their farmers riot at the drop of a hat.

The only thing such an opponent understands is being met with equal or greater force. The Eu seal ban looked to them like a free shot. They could get political brownie points in their own countries and lose nothing in trade relationships with Canada. Do you think it was a coincidence that Harper was scheduled to meet the very next week to sign some trade deals to try to get economies moving?

I'm simply saying that if we disagree with the EU ban then we have to show the Europeans that there is a cost to what they've done. It seems we can't expect much from Ottawa so we have to do it ourselves.

It may be a spit in the wind but I've been picky about the origin of what I buy for some years now. I won't buy a can of mushrooms from China. I still can remember that brave young man standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square. I would NEVER buy a car made in China unless they improve their human rights record!

I do try to be practical about it. I'm under no illusions that I can singlehandedly change the world. It can be very hard to tell where a product came from, especially when it may have been manufactured in several different countries before it was finished. The new labeling laws Harper passed a little while ago are helping. There's still old stock in my supermarket but gradually my choices are becoming clearer.

A few weeks ago I was looking at different cans of beans, trying to determine where they originated when I noticed another old guy beside me also reading the label. I asked him "Fussy about where they come from?" He looked right up and smiled, saying "You bet! I've even got my wife and kids doing the same!"

It gave me hope!

Edited May 19, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Machjo]

It may be a spit in the wind but I've been picky about the origin of what I buy for some years now. I won't buy a can of mushrooms from China. I still can remember that brave young man standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square. I would NEVER buy a car made in China unless they improve their human rights record!

What about the UNHCR's decision concerning a special status for Catholic over other religious education in Ontario? Do we boycott products from Ontario too? I think the UN has criticized Quebec for Bill 101 and Canada for its treatment of First Nations too, though I have to confirm that. But if so, then should Canadians ban Canadian products too and just buy Swedish?

How do we know that boycotting Chinese products benefits the Chinese people more than it hurts them? I don't know, yet undecided on that, and maybe you can convince me. I've heard the argument that part of that money goes to Chinese taxes. True. But part of that tax money also goes towards public education, health care, etc. too, and not all the money goes to taxes, some going to salaries for otherwise unemployed workers.

Also, if the argument is strictly human rights, then where do we draw the line and say that though the UNHCR has criticized Canada for human rights violations, ours are les serious than China's? Where de we draw that line, or do we make an exception for ourselves? Of instead of focussing on whether a nation has violated human rights, do we focus instead on whether its situation is improving? if so, then China, though behind Canada in human rights, has none-the-less made greater improvements than Canada in recnt years in that while Canada has few human rights violations on record with the UNHCR, there's been little improvement; whereas China's grievous human rights violations have been in slow improvement day by day.

Again, I'm not saying I'm right and your wrong, as you can see from all the question marks above. These are just quesitons I have.

A few weeks ago I was looking at different cans of beans, trying to determine where they originated when I noticed another old guy beside me also reading the label. I asked him "Fussy about where they come from?" He looked right up and smiled, saying "You bet! I've even got my wife and kids doing the same!"

It gave me hope!

Interesting. I look at the ingredients for each product too, but never to see where it's made, but rather whether it's vegan. So I suppose it would automatically exclude fois gras wherever it might be made.

One thing I could agree to though would be something akin to the Green Shift proposed by the Green Party. This would atuomatically make part of the cost of a product more or less proportionally linked to the distance it's had to be transported to the market. But that more to preserve our resources than to keep our spending in Canada, though obviously that could be an added bonus to some degree by default.

[Wild Bill]

What about the UNHCR's decision concerning a special status for Catholic over other religious education in Ontario? Do we boycott products from Ontario too? I think the UN has criticized Quebec for Bill 101 and Canada for its treatment of First Nations too, though I have to confirm that. But if so, then should Canadians ban Canadian products too and just buy Swedish?

How do we know that boycotting Chinese products benefits the Chinese people more than it hurts them? I don't know, yet undecided on that, and maybe you can convince me. I've heard the argument that part of that money goes to Chinese taxes. True. But part of that tax money also goes towards public education, health care, etc. too, and not all the money goes to taxes, some going to salaries for otherwise unemployed workers.

Also, if the argument is strictly human rights, then where do we draw the line and say that though the UNHCR has criticized Canada for human rights violations, ours are les serious than China's? Where de we draw that line, or do we make an exception for ourselves? Of instead of focussing on whether a nation has violated human rights, do we focus instead on whether its situation is improving? if so, then China, though behind Canada in human rights, has none-the-less made greater improvements than Canada in recnt years in that while Canada has few human rights violations on record with the UNHCR, there's been little improvement; whereas China's grievous human rights violations have been in slow improvement day by day.

Again, I'm not saying I'm right and your wrong, as you can see from all the question marks above. These are just quesitons I have.

It's simpler for me. I have no interest in boycotting everything for every reason, just to be fair. I arbitrarily pick and choose what's important to ME! I don't care about religions, I accept that (only from my personal experience) most Quebecois only care about Quebec and I don't make a distinction between hurting China's people vs. their government. It's THEIR government and only they can change it!

As I said, I can't save the world and more than that, I feel no personal responsibility to do so.

I just pick certain areas that offend me and sometimes do what I can on a personal level. If you try to fix EVERYTHING you spread yourself out so much that you can't do ANYTHING effectively!

[Wild Bill]

One thing I could agree to though would be something akin to the Green Shift proposed by the Green Party. This would atuomatically make part of the cost of a product more or less proportionally linked to the distance it's had to be transported to the market. But that more to preserve our resources than to keep our spending in Canada, though obviously that could be an added bonus to some degree by default.

Have the Greens thought very deeply about this? First off, the farther away the source of your product or service the higher the shipping and transportation costs. In a free market no one can afford to swallow this. They would have to include it in their price. Obviously a local source would have an advantage.

What's more, in the real world they will come smack up against all the subsidies governments of many countries have used to 'rig' trade in their favour. China refuses to let its currency value float like that of any other, keeping it unnaturally low to give themselves a huge labour cost advantage. European farmers have huge subsidies to make their food cheaper. Why do you think that I can see strawberries from the former Yugoslavia in my local supermarket at a cheaper price than local? Since they are fresh they must have come by air freight, which isn't cheap at all! It's impossible for this to happen unless there is a huge subsidy.

How on earth do the Greens expect to deal with this? They would need a bureaucracy larger than that for the Liberal gun registry to examine all the products we import and levy a duty or tariff based on the true transportation cost. They would then be forced to correct for any subsidies. Otherwise they would totally swamp out any correction levied just for transportation.

After all this, they would have to deal politically with all these countries, who will be screaming so loud they would be heard clear around the planet!

If this idea is typically of how deeply the Greens think things out, it's another reason why they have a long way to go before they are ready to govern.

[KeyStone]

"So nobody wants to buy these products yet the EU alone imported 5.5 million worth of seal products? Something doesn’t add up. "

Dave, I think that you are under the mistaken impression that the EU is the Borg collective.

They do not all think and act with the same mind. Just as their are Canadians here who would buy tiger penises for their alleged aphrodisiac properties, the majority of Canadians, think that this is a wrongful act.

The EU is banning seal products because the seal hunt stands out as being particularly brutal - given the way in which the animals are killed, the understanding of how smart seals are, and the fact that the vast majority are less than 3 months old when killed. They are banning their own member countries from trading seal products as well so I highly doubt that they have some protectionist agenda.

Seals eat a lot of fish. So do people. In fact, the seals eat a tiny fraction of what people eat of the fish, but in our arrogance, we want to kill another species, because we claim the right to all the fish? Not to mention the fact that not even the DFO makes the claim that seals hurt the cod industry, because seals also eat predators of the cod.

"If the products aren't sold the killing will still have to continue, the only difference will be the carcasses will be left to rot rather than be put to use. " Your false logic aside, the carcasses are currently left to rot - the only difference is that the pelts are removed.

"All the EU ban will really achieve is to create a rather lucrative black market for seal products. Of course the legitimate seal hunters won't profit from this and the current regulations of not killing baby seals will be ignored because likely the baby pelts would sell for a higher price. When will the world learn that prohibition in its various and sundry forms do not work, it only creates an underground economy. All in all this only serves to further damage an already battered Atlantic economy, I seriously doubt our government will do anything to rectify the situation."

Fairly unlikely. You're really just grabbing at every straw you can think of. Do you really think that the general European populous is going to go to some underground market to buy their sealskins? And then when they get it, they'll wear them around? Hardly.

I think Canada should ban shark fin soup - not in retaliation - but simply because it is a very cruel practice. Incidentally, it will also send the message that it is fine to ban things that they are passionate about, but don't think about banning things for protectionist measures, because it will force us to take a closer look.