hundreds demonstate against Canadian goldmine

[Guest American Woman]

I always like to know whom I'm talking about and so the following was found. The company is based on Toronto, founded in 1995 by a Romanian-Australian entrepreneur Frank Timis. In the early 1990's, he had two conviction in Australia for possession of her ion with the intent to supply. I guess is says a lot about this character. I wonder how he was allowed into Canada? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Resources

I wondered the same thing myself, given Canada's stand on DUI's.

I, too, like to know who I'm talking about, and found a good read in The Globe and Mail: How far to go for gold?

It's quite lengthy, but very interesting and informative.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, I don't know if the Star claim is true or not, but obviously the writer knew which chain to jerk in the collective Canadian psyche. The whole backpack flag thing is mostly a myth anyway.

It is mostly a myth for sure, but one that's believed and perpetuated by a few on this forum. I have read in a couple different sources recently, though, that Canadians are the "new" Americans.....

[jacee]

Looks like they are. Credit to Jacee for the link.

This is the most recent part of Jacee's link, but for some reason didn't think it was relevant to post. Gee, I wonder why.

I was introducing the issue of bribery.

It's about time somebody got nailed, albeit only one and 10 years late.

The RCMP has hundreds of cases, but not the resources to investigate them. I wonder why ...?

Don't be fooled by a token conviction ... bribery is the way Canadian companies operate, and is why they register in Canada.

And perhaps we should also look at the human rights issues ... especially use of violence against locals who protest the mines ...

But locals in countries like Ecuador allege some companies have used armed guards to violently trample their opposition to mines that threaten rainforests and their way of life. The word "Canada" is so reviled in some places that travelling Canadians mask their citizenship by wearing American flags on their caps and backpacks.

More here ... MUCH more

Congo ... Ecuador ... Peru ... El Salvador ... the Philipines ...

And we accept refugees from such countries in conflict, conflicts often caused by 'Canadian' mining companies, threatening people with violence, driving people off their land, polluting it so it no longer sustains them.

We're Canadians. We should know what's being done in our name.

Edited January 30, 2012 by jacee

[waldo]

You worry too much AW, our big corporations and big governments are scumbags too and no better or worse than your's.

OK...if that's the case, why don't we see more focus on that reality instead of whatever the Americans are doing or plan to do? Why does Ottawa need to play this game with naive Canadian voters?

putting aside the nonsensical approach taken by this thread's OP, clearly, the target focus this thread has reflects directly upon the profile pipeline initiatives of the day. Canadian pipeline initiatives are distinct from any decision your country proceeds with concerning Keystone XL; unfortunately, Harper, his ministers and their acolytes have played loose with this fact, presuming to pump up the rhetoric about "taking our business to China if KXL is denied". The profile environmental protests within Canada reflect upon the Canadian pipeline initiatives; clearly, as I'm aware, your government hasn't been cast in a negative light. The silly premise AW fronted (and I guess you joined in on) would presume on Canadians protesting against, for example, China because a Chinese corporation is invested in the Enbridge pipeline proposal. I believe that's called a non-starter.

[Evening Star]

Sure they should, but many don't, thus the need for laws.

Well, yeah. There's a school of thought, exemplified by Friedman, that a corporation's only social responsibility is to legally deliver a profit for its shareholders, that nothing more should be expected of a corporation (e.g. in the absence of legislation). That's what I'm disputing a little.

Yet the government gets involved in these decisions. Harper certainly has involved himself with the XL Pipeline, for example. And when the government is lax in enforcing its laws, such as bribery to foreign countries for corporate favors re: mining, then the government is involved.

OK, I haven't seen the evidence yet that the govt is involved with this Romanian mine but I've no doubt that the government does get involved in some problematic economic ventures.

Yes, that's partly what I'm asking - I'm asking if an attack aimed at Canadian civilians would be perceived as "blow back" - it's even been said that "the U.S. was asking for it" regarding 9-11. My question goes further, though - should the government take the possibility of blowback into consideration when making decisions/policy/taking a stand on an issue?

You realize that these questions are pretty far removed from those in your OP (about whether unemployment or environmental degradation is the more serious problem and about whether the company 'has the right' to proceed)? Your OP also made no mention of the US in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere.

I think I've answered the first. My answer to the second is "Yes, the government should take every possible outcome into consideration when making decisions".

[Guest American Woman]

Well, yeah. There's a school of thought, exemplified by Friedman, that a corporation's only social responsibility is to legally deliver a profit for its shareholders, that nothing more should be expected of a corporation (e.g. in the absence of legislation). That's what I'm disputing a little.

Ok. That clarifies it for me.

OK, I haven't seen the evidence yet that the govt is involved with this Romanian mine but I've no doubt that the government does get involved in some problematic economic ventures.

The government supports it - as I've said, there was an Urgent Action [to] Stop the Canadian Government from Supporting the Rosia Montana Gold Mine Just by supporting it the government is involved.

You realize that these questions are pretty far removed from those in your OP (about whether unemployment or environmental degradation is the more serious problem and about whether the company 'has the right' to proceed)? Your OP also made no mention of the US in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere.

Threads evolve - and expand.

I think I've answered the first. My answer to the second is "Yes, the government should take every possible outcome into consideration when making decisions".

But doesn't that put control of our governments in the hands of the protesters/those threatening violence? Seems to me such groups would end up dictating our policies.

[Evening Star]

But doesn't that put control of our governments in the hands of the protesters/those threatening violence? Seems to me such groups would end up dictating our policies.

I said the government should consider every possible outcome, not that they should base their decision on one possible outcome. I've already answered that appeasing someone's objections should not be the deciding factor in situations like this.

[eyeball]

OK...if that's the case, why don't we see more focus on that reality instead of whatever the Americans are doing or plan to do? Why does Ottawa need to play this game with naive Canadian voters?

For fun and profit I suppose.

[waldo]

The government supports it - as I've said, there was an Urgent Action [to] Stop the Canadian Government from Supporting the Rosia Montana Gold Mine Just by supporting it the government is involved.

are you so desperate to attempt to make your "argument" that you must mix tenses to presume upon current/active support?

But doesn't that put control of our governments in the hands of the protesters/those threatening violence? Seems to me such groups would end up dictating our policies.

control? Do you seriously suggest that U.S. protestors "threatening violence" would sway your U.S. Government from sanctioning the KXL pipeline in the face of a legitimate State Department permit and an approving environmental assessment?