hundreds demonstate against Canadian goldmine

[Guest American Woman]

Hundreds of Romanians took to the streets Saturday in two simultaneous demonstrations in a Transylvanian village and in Bucharest, one in support and the other against a Canadian goldmine project.

On the one hand:

On Saturday, hundreds of people supporting the project gathered in the central square of the village yelling "Down with Unemployment" or "We Live on Gold, We Die of Hunger," the Mediafax news agency reported.

On the other hand:

"We are against this project first because the company's promises to create thousands of jobs are false, according to analysis of similar mines," Bogdan Hossu, chairman of Cartel Alfa, one of the main union confederations in the country, told AFP.

"Secondly, the project consists in having a huge tailings pond (mine dump). In case of an ecological disaster like the one in Baia Mare in 2000 or in Hungary in 2010, the Romanian state would be held responsible," he added.

So does "unemployment" trump the concerns? Does a Canadian company have the right to go into another country against protests?

[Smallc]

Yes

[Guest American Woman]

Yes

Good to know; so I can assume the same principle applies to the U.S.?

Edited January 29, 2012 by American Woman

[Smallc]

Yes...unless you think that law is somehow made by demonstrators....I don't really care what they think, most of the time.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Smallc

[Guest American Woman]

Yes...unless you think that law is somehow made by demonstrators....I don't really care what they think, most of the time.

So how the citizens feel about what their government approves has no bearing on what happens? - I noticed you added that you don't care what they think "most of the time." When, under what circumstances, do you care? When Canada isn't involved? Because this is what you said -

The US, at least in part, brought the terror attacks upon themselves. How is that even controversial? US actions around the world have drawn the ire of many groups. That can't be denied even.

Yet the U.S. was in Saudi Arabia with the Saudi government's blessings. Since you don't care what those who objected think - obviously they don't make the laws - how did we bring on the attacks? Or are you saying Canada's actions could bring on such attacks?

It's not just this issue.

Canada is getting pretty cozy with China for oil profits, too - which is angering many people. So Canada is drawing the ire of many groups - that can't be denied, right? And if Canadian civilians are attacked and killed as a result of that ire, it would be blacklash for Canada's actions - Canada is basically setting itself up for such backlash? Is that how you see it?

[Shady]

Does a Canadian company have the right to go into another country against protests?

They only have a right if the law and the government allow them. I'm not sure if I understand the purpose of this thread. As you've pointed out, there's two dueling groups of protesters.

[Guest American Woman]

They only have a right if the law and the government allow them. I'm not sure if I understand the purpose of this thread. As you've pointed out, there's two dueling groups of protesters.

There usually are two opposing sides in such situations - and that includes the situations where the U.S. has been involved. As I said, clearly the law and the government allowed our presence in Saudi Arabia. Obviously Canada is now "drawing the ire of some groups" - and some here seem to think we should all stay out of other countries, that our presence results in blowback.

So now that Canada is clearly drawing ire from some groups, I'm wondering if Canada should stay out. I'm trying to get a read on when it's ok to force one's presence in another nation - and this deal is clearly for profit, as are the oil talks with China - and when it's not. I'm sure many will stay silent on this issue, but I think it makes for an interesting discussion.

Edited January 29, 2012 by American Woman

[Evening Star]

Where is the discussion on the US in Saudi Arabia?

[Guest American Woman]

Where is the discussion on the US in Saudi Arabia?

U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia has made its way into many threads. So you have nothing to say? You have no opinion on this?

[cybercoma]

I'm trying to get a read on when it's ok to force one's presence in another nation

You've changed it from a legal to an ethical question. In your OP you asked if Canada has the right to do this. Now you're asking if they "ought to" do this.

[Guest American Woman]

You've changed it from a legal to an ethical question. In your OP you asked if Canada has the right to do this. Now you're asking if they "ought to" do this.

No, I haven't changed it - Obviously the U.S. had the legal right to have a presence in S.A., and that goes for the private companies that have 'invaded' other nations with their presence/western culture, too.

But I can't help but notice that you had nothing to say about it.

[waldo]

There usually are two opposing sides in such situations - and that includes the situations where the U.S. has been involved. As I said, clearly the law and the government allowed our presence in Saudi Arabia. Obviously Canada is now "drawing the ire of some groups" - and some here seem to think we should all stay out of other countries, that our presence results in blowback.

are you really attempting to equate internal citizen protests relative to perceived corporate/government economic pursuits with... blowback to U.S. military invasion and intrusion in aid of postured corporate/government economic pursuits?

[Guest American Woman]

are you really attempting to equate internal citizen protests relative to perceived corporate/government economic pursuits with... blowback to U.S. military invasion and intrusion in aid of postured corporate/government economic pursuits?

The U.S. didn't invade Saudi Arabia, and clearly your government is involved in pursuing "for profit" ventures in other nations that are not being well received by all. Furthermore, I've heard plenty of comments about our "corporate" presence in other nations that has caused ire.

Quite frankly, I don't see the difference in "drawing ire from groups" of people. Your presence in another nation purely for profit - as it draws protests and anger - nothing to say?

[waldo]

The U.S. didn't invade Saudi Arabia, and clearly your government is involved in pursuing "for profit" ventures in other nations that are not being well received by all. Furthermore, I've heard plenty of comments about our "corporate" presence in other nations that has caused ire.

you used the term 'blowback'... that most certainly does not have immediate and direct corporate attachments... well, notwithstanding a Haliburton here or there.

if you want to speak of "our government" involved in pursuing "for profit" ventures in other nations, I'm not sure you want to lead with your Romanian goldmine example... I don't read any direct (or indirect) Canadian government attachment to that. Perhaps if you present a more representative example of your intended point.

[Guest American Woman]

you used the term 'blowback'... that most certainly does not have immediate and direct corporate attachments... well, notwithstanding a Haliburton here or there.

if you want to speak of "our government" involved in pursuing "for profit" ventures in other nations, I'm not sure you want to lead with your Romanian goldmine example... I don't read any direct (or indirect) Canadian government attachment to that. Perhaps if you present a more representative example of your intended point.

I already cited the government cozying up to China for oil profits. Many environmentalists are against that too, as well as the xl pipeline. So if an extremist environmental group were to make an attack on Canadian citizens, would it be "blowback?"

If you still refuse to answer the question, I'll know where you're coming from. Silence sometimes speaks volumes - this would be one of those times.

[jacee]

They only have a right if the law and the government allow them.

Or you bribe the government ...

http://www.stikeman.com/cps/rde/xchg/se-en/hs.xsl/15500.htm

In May 2011, Transparency International, a group that monitors globa corruption, issued a report that criticized Canada for failing to enforce its foreign bribery laws, noting that the Canadian legal system and courts"do not handle complex 'white collar' crimina cases very well."

This followed a similar report by the OECD Working Group on Bribery, published in March 2011, which found that "Canada's regime for enforcement of the Public Officials Act remains problematic in important areas."

The report cited Canadian government information noting that in 2008 more than three- quarters of the world's exploration and mining firms were Canada based, and that these 1,293 companies were involved in Canada and more than 100 countries around the world.

...

The report, available at

www.oecd.org/daf/nocorruption

lists all of the recommendations to Canada adopted by the Working Group on Bribery...

Due to the significance of the issues raised in this report, the Working Group recommends that Canada report back to it on progress in October 2011. Following the usual process, Canada will also make an oral report within one year and a further written report within two years, which will be made publicly available.

http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=10820

Canada provides a 'safe haven' for registering international mining companies operating by bribing public officials in other countries, without interference from the law.

'Unfortunately' (!) the RCMP unit tasked with these investigations lacks the necessary resources to conduct investigations and lay charges.

[waldo]

I already cited the government cozying up to China for oil profits. Many environmentalists are against that too, as well as the xl pipeline. So if an extremist environmental group were to make an attack on Canadian citizens, would it be "blowback?"

ok, thanks for acknowledging your Romania goldmine example doesn't fit your narrative, whatever it actually is. Your initial premise held to Canadian government intervention in "other countries". Are you now working that initial premise back to internalize within Canada only?

[Guest American Woman]

ok, thanks for acknowledging your Romania goldmine example doesn't fit your narrative, whatever it actually is. Your initial premise held to Canadian government intervention in "other countries". Are you now working that initial premise back to internalize within Canada only?

Respond to the issue, or I won't be wasting any more time with you - or anyone else who refuses to respond to the actual issue. As I said, your lack of comments speaks volumes - and tells me what I wanted to know.

[waldo]

Respond to the issue, or I won't be wasting any more time with you - or anyone else who refuses to respond to the actual issue. As I said, your lack of comments speaks volumes - and tells me what I wanted to know.

clearly state the issue you've speaking to - use representative example(s).

[Evening Star]

U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia has made its way into many threads. So you have nothing to say? You have no opinion on this?

I don't know enough about it yet (nor about the US in Saudi Arabia, which is why I asked; I was especially interested in seeing the context for your quote from Smallc so I could compare the situations).

Edited January 29, 2012 by Evening Star

[Guest American Woman]

Or you bribe the government ...

That's really interesting - thanks for the link.

[Shady]

Respond to the issue, or I won't be wasting any more time with you - or anyone else who refuses to respond to the actual issue. As I said, your lack of comments speaks volumes - and tells me what I wanted to know.

I understandt the point you're making. But some of us never subscribed to the 'blow back' nonsense argued in other threads. The fact that some people, for some reason give legitimacy to the demands of a terrorist is pretty disturbing. And if you follow their logic, or lack thereof, everyone would be pretty limited in their liberty. Including legitimately recognized sovereign governments.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't know enough about it yet (nor about the US in Saudi Arabia, which is why I asked).

Sorry, apparently I misunderstood your reference. Our presence in Saudi Arabia, with the Saudi government's approval of course, has been cited as the reason for bin Laden's anger. It has been said that it's our presence in SA and the ME - "American culture" is also cited as a reason for hating the U.S. - that has caused blowback, ie: 9-11. So my question is - when there is objection, should our countries stay out of the country in question? And what about objection from environmentalist groups - how is that different from objection from Islamic groups? If we should appease one by staying out, should we also appease the other?

[Guest American Woman]

I understandt the point you're making. But some of us never subscribed to the 'blow back' nonsense argued in other threads. The fact that some people, for some reason give legitimacy to the demands of a terrorist is pretty disturbing. And if you follow their logic, or lack thereof, everyone would be pretty limited in their liberty. Including legitimately recognized sovereign governments.

I understand that some of you never subscribed to the "blow back" theory - and I agree with your conclusion.

[Shady]

Sorry, apparently I misunderstood your reference. Our presence in Saudi Arabia, with the Saudi government's approval of course, has been cited as the reason for bin Laden's anger. It has been said that it's our presence in SA and the ME - "American culture" is also cited as a reason for hating the U.S. - that has caused blowback, ie: 9-11. So my question is - when there is objection, should our countries stay out of the country in question? And what about objection from environmentalist groups - how is that different from objection from Islamic groups? If we should appease one by staying out, should we also appease the other?

Using the distorted logic of the 'blow back' peddlers, the answer would be yes. If the anti-mining protesters became strong enough, with a charismatic leader, and put together an plot to kill thousands of Canadians, it would be perfectly legitimate. And would definitely constitute blow back for the unwanted Canadian presence.