UL Coke Boycott falls short

by david Mon Apr 18, 2005 00:41

This was an excellent result.
A true example of people standing up for democratic principles, namely the once of presumption of innocence.

In a time where this right is being lost as we see in the US where people are being arrested and detained indefinitely, it is important that we show that we are a step above this and never prejudge people until we have all the evidence.

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker (personalcapacity) Mon Apr 18, 2005 01:06

Not sure if this was apologetics about Coca Corporate facism, but let me assure you that there is nothing democratic about Coca Cola as an instiutuion.

Check the link below to see what happens to folks in Coke's home state of Georgia, who nonviolently resist Coke's armed wing deployed in Latin America. Death squads trained at Ft. Benning's School of the Americas.

They're in jail.....check the link, consider sending them a postcard from Ireland.

Fair play to anti-Coke folks in Limerick. You might have better luck with high school students than uni students these daze!

by know152 Mon Apr 18, 2005 13:32

So why didn't the Yes side do more to get the vote out? andf even on that turnout it still lost. what did the No campaign have other than money as an argument that was so strong?

When do you think you can run the vote again?

by sad ul student Mon Apr 18, 2005 13:51

as a UL student who supported the boycott it was hard to beat the other side and I am p....d off with some of the actions of the other side. Firstly the Clubs and Societies office in publicising the campaign and referendum urged all students to take account of the €20k that clubs and socs get from Coke. Secondly real high quality publicity material was being handed out on campus and when challenged these individuals refused to say who they were handing out the leaftets for.

again, its hard to fight this campaign when you have the university using their influcence (which I feel is against regulations) on students. For me CLubs and Societies Office has a lot of answers to give on their carry on

by juan pablo (UL student) Mon Apr 18, 2005 14:13

the no campaign chose to focus on "freedom of choice" as an issue and attempted to turn issue into left V right debate with some awful leaflets calling all those who proposed the ban as socialists, that combined with the fact that there was no competition for su president meant that it was almost certain that a quorom was never going to be reached, then again ULSU has always prided itself on being non political so fair play to those who managed to get the referendum called in the first place, maybe next year.

by UCD Limerick Mon Apr 18, 2005 14:16

Fair credence to the anti-coke referendum team who I believe worked very hard in the name of human rights in its purest sense. Unfortunately as one predicted, UL, like all third level institutions in this country, is a bastion of conservatives that I believed is still conveyed through the prism of social groups like sport societies. One also has to take into account the onus on economic socialisation in the role of that institution which can be pinpointed at the corporate involvement in the college, namely Shannon based industry.

Nonetheless, keep up the good work. Remember its better to fight for something you believe in, than go along with something you don’t.

by juan pablo Mon Apr 18, 2005 14:45

suppose i should add the no campaign bussed someone in from some other college who had experience with fighting coke referendums, maybe the yes campaign should follow suit next time or *shock horror* the no campaign can keep the campaign in the college without need for reinforcements.

by didnt have a vote Mon Apr 18, 2005 14:57

Didn't the yes campaign get people in from Sinaltrainal? How is that different?

by Sad ul student Mon Apr 18, 2005 15:09

There is a difference between having people help out the campaign and having the college authorities openly side with one group and allowing people hand out material, remember you need to be part of a society to do this, these individuals were paid by coke

by know152 Mon Apr 18, 2005 15:18

are part of the Union not the university. Are you a UL student at all, I wonder?

As for the leaflets, which were the good quality ones? I didn't really see an leaflets of good quality from any side. Also, as regards socialist, where were they? there was no sign of Labour Youth at all.

by didnt have a vote Mon Apr 18, 2005 15:25

College authorities openly siding against ye?? Did I miss Downer declaring from on high we must all drink coke? You most definately do not need to be part of a society to campaign for or against a Students Union motion, you just need to be a student in UL. Fair enough if someone came in from outside to support the no campaign, you can argue that shouldn't have been allowed, but by extension, the Sinaltrainal lads shouldn't have been allowed to campaign either. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

And I seriously doubt that anyone was paid to campaign for or against that motion. No offense to anyone involved on either side, but it was the most lacklustre campaign in UL's history. Compare what was done for this referendum to the Nestle referendum 2 or 3 years ago. No comparison, and thats why it was defeated.

by Major Fraser Mon Apr 18, 2005 15:26 major.fraser at gmail dot com

Who are the college authorities here? The UL Governing Body, Academic Council, The Presidents Office. Campbells Catering??

None of these groups commented on the campaign one way or the other, I would be suprised if they even knew it was happening.

The Clubs and Societies office, it is part of and run by the ULSU, and not directly by the University as may be the case elsewhere. I don't see very many people arguing that the UL Students Union and the College Authorities are one and the same.

You can argue that the ULSU and ALL its offices etc should have stayed away from the campaign, but there was a question of how much clubs & socs sponsorship money came form Coke and they were the only people able to answer it.

As to people handing out material. all you had to do to do that was register as a yes/no campaigner with the ULSU Referendum Commission - to ensure they knew who was handing out what and for whom. The Referendum Commission even went so far as to point people towards the registered Chair and Committee on each side to ensure there weren't multiple campaigns runnning. As far as I know the Referendum Commission didn't have any problems with any of the individuals handing out information on either side. Nor am I aware of any individuals being paid for their time

by sad ul student Mon Apr 18, 2005 15:38

I am aware of students being paid by coke to hand out leaflets, also I was referring to Clubs and Socieites whose major source of funding is from capitation fees and who ultimately are responsible to the university.

It was not fair to highlight the amount of funding given by coke when announcing details of the referendum, as part of a society committee the email I received from clubs and societies announcing the referedum spoke of the need to take account of the funding received by coke and the impact a boycott would have on socities.

Please this is wrong, all clubs and socs had to do was announch details not get into the debate, also as regards people handing out information myself and a colleague were verbally abused when we asked one individual who they were representing when they were handing out leaflets, they told uss to f..k off and they were being paid to do it.

UL is also renowned as a conservative institution, recent event with other socities have shown this, think of the Peace Society Human Rights Conference this year, a panel on N Ireland was cancelled when Mary Kelly was invited to speak at the conference because Fine Gael took exception to her prescence. In this case conservatism is more apparent in Ul money means more than lives.

by Major Fraser Mon Apr 18, 2005 16:02

I assume you mean that it was not fair of the ULSU Clubs & Socs office to highlight, in a seemingly biased manner, the amount of funding given by Coke. And that they should have limited themselves to a statement stating that the referendum was happening; that Coke funds clubs and socs, with the amount of funding and left it at that. Any chance you can post Clubs & Socs email here?

I believe that Coke told the NO campaign that they weren't going to get involved in the Referendum in UL. So it comes as a surprise that you were told, in a completely inexcusable manner, "to f..k off and they were being paid to do it". I note they didn't tell you who paid them to do it! Coke would seem to be a valid assumption...

As to UL being conservative, I must regretablly agree with you there and note that some of us are as much in favour of letting (indeed encouraging) anyone speak on any topic on campus as we are in favour of anyone drinking whatever they wish in campus.

by didnt have a vote Mon Apr 18, 2005 16:05

Lets leave aside the issue of whether or not people were paid by coke to campaign. You say they were, so I'll take you at your word.

I think it is extremely unfair off you to somehow paint this defeat as being casued by
a) Clubs And Societies
b) UL being an inherently conservative college.

On the Clubs and Societies issue. Firstly, Clubs and Societie were not told which way to vote. They were asked to take into consideration that a substansial sum of money is received by Clubs and Societies from Coke through sponsorship. Thats a fact. When you make a decision, you take all the facts into account. I happen to think that if they Yes campaign had been more presuasive, then Clubs and Socs people would have supported the motion. They have done so before, for example in the Nestle referendum. In fact, I think I can safely say that Clubs and Socs people are the most socially aware people on campus as a group. The failure was in the Yes campaign to produce a persuasive case. The votes were there, they weren't taken.

As for this notion that UL is a conservative institution, If that is the case, then how come Nestle was banned 3 years ago. How come an activist like E O B was elected two years in a row as SU Pres

As for the Peace Soc incident, yes a Fine Gael member took exception to her presence, but that person was a student. And that person got the Northern Ireland panel cancelled entirely by themselves. One person is hardly an indication of a deeply conservative culture.

You're making up excuses, which I don't mind. You're blaming people in Clubs and Socs who do great work both for their clubs and soc's, UL and the wider community as a whole. You're trying to tar the entire university as being throwbacks to Margaret Thatcher. I think thats very unfair.

by know152 Mon Apr 18, 2005 16:21 know152 at yahoo dot com

Sad UL, can you indicate how you know that people were being paid? Who told you they were being paid? If you can't idenitfy them, then it would seem that you are only making it up. And are you certain they were not being sarcastic?

by sad ul student Mon Apr 18, 2005 16:29

Could I ask why you didnt have a vote? You seem to know an awful lot about the situation

Also in relation to the clubs and societies office stating that people should take into account the money from coke because it is a fact why then didnt they also ask people to think about the workers being killed in south america as this has been documented as a fact. People were deliberately scared into voting a certain way by highlight the financial implications.

As for UL being a conservative institution let me give you another example, another society, I wont name it hear because it could get targeted, recently highlighted a talk by a speaker who is continually referred to in a certain way (not disparaging) for example as someone would be called a champion of the poor or a whistleblower. Well the unviersity refused to allow any promotional material for this talk until this reference was removed.

Bear in kind that the speaker uses this term and so does mainstream media, UL would not allow emails or posters be used with this term. When it was sorted the email was circualted at 5pm on the day of the talk. Posters were removed from certain areas because of "health and safety reasons" i.e. removed from glass doors around the foundation buildin, I can accept this except for the fact that if you look in the foundation building posters are all over doors, like the post grad society. The reason for targeting this speaker and society , he speaks out against american interests and some of their "democratic allies"

Again to highlight conservatism, I refer to the Peace Society, on a trip to lebanon some years back the group refused to meet with all parties to the conflict there becuase of fine gael and other conservative influcences. Imaging, the group agrred to meet the Israeli Forces occuping south lebanon (illegaly under UN resolutions) but refused to meet representatives of Hezbollah.

But I wont just focus on the peace soc. I can highlight instances of my time in the university (5years) where the conservative nature was seen. In my first years there, attemts to organise political parties outside of the mainstream were scuppered with the overt cooperation of the authorities. Another case, I know of a case taken against the university for bullying and the college took 2 years to deal with it and allowed the standard of english of the complainant to be considered in the case. Another case, in one department there was severe criticism for the playing of the american national anthem at an event to mark a funding allocation at a time when the US was preparing to go to war (illegally) in Iraq.

UL is conservative and its institutions are trying to creat a history for themselves.

by sad ul Mon Apr 18, 2005 16:32

As I said one individual said he was being paid,and believe me if you like, I think its up to this individual to say why he said he was being paid to hand out leaflets.

This guy said it

by know152 Mon Apr 18, 2005 17:01

But who is this guy?

by sad ul Mon Apr 18, 2005 17:04

Know 152

I dont know who he was, he was handing out leaflets and as I said before when a colleague and I asked him he told uss to f..k off he was being paid to to do

I didnt go back to ask him again, all i am doing is saying what happened.

My point is that I dont know who he was and he wouldnt tell us

by know152 Mon Apr 18, 2005 17:09

The union motion that was voted on did explicitly note the situation in Colombia. Also, if clubs and Socs mentioned only the impact on clubs and socs then surely they were being sensible in that the impact on them was all they knew about.

"People were deliberately scared into voting a certain way by highlight the financial implications."
don't you mean that based on the evidence presented to them that people voted in the manner that made most sense to them?

"Bear in kind that the speaker uses this term and so does mainstream media, UL would not allow emails or posters be used with this term. When it was sorted the email was circualted at 5pm on the day of the talk. "

Mails for talks via IT in UL are notorious for the sloppiness for their sending out.

"Posters were removed from certain areas because of "health and safety reasons" i.e. removed from glass doors around the foundation buildin, I can accept this except for the fact that if you look in the foundation building posters are all over doors, like the post grad society. "

What you mean is that the foundation building which is where the postgrads work had posters for the postgrad ball, on glass partitions, not on doorways.

"Another case, in one department there was severe criticism for the playing of the american national anthem at an event to mark a funding allocation at a time when the US was preparing to go to war (illegally) in Iraq."

So, we should only play anthems if we currently like that country?

by Major Fraser Mon Apr 18, 2005 17:15

know152, sad ul; I don't think we want this thread turning into a "he said, she said" argument.

There is no reason to doubt that someone told Sad UL Student "to f..k off and they were being paid to do it." We can't expect Sad UL to interrogate everyone handing out leaflets, particularly if they are going to be abusive as well

At the same time, as I said upthread "I believe that Coke told the NO campaign that they weren't going to get involved in the Referendum in UL." I am sure that Sad UL takes my word on that as well.

It might be more interesting to find out WHO was paying who and for what. But I don't see that happening.

Likewise I don't know that we need many more examples of UL being a conservative body. didnt have a vote has provided some counter-examples to that.

At the end of the day, the referendum was defeated because enough people didn't vote - proving the students are more apathetic than conservative/liberal/socialist/whatever. Personally I would think this is a bad thing for the YES campaign - their job was to inform the students, convince them as to their position and get the vote out, the second and third parts of which demonstrably did not happen.

by Sad UL Mon Apr 18, 2005 17:15

I can see you are interested in mature debate,

bye the way, you seem to know where the postgrad area is and can see all the posters, on glass partitions not doorways my apologies.

Can you tell me then why the posters I mention were removed from these partitions on the grounds I mentioned.

Also, in relation to UL emails there is a difference between slopiness and refusing to send emails. The ones I am talking about actually had a person deaing with ITD allday and there is written accounts by email of the whole issue.

Finally, in relation to national anthems, yes its correct to be angry about playing anthems of countries illegally entering into war just becuase they are giving money to the campus. Money before lives.

Maybe you are the fine gaeler who scuppered the peace soc events,

UL is not conservative,

Lives come before money

now who is being silly

by know152 Mon Apr 18, 2005 19:12

the comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular.

by St.John Tue Apr 19, 2005 01:53

I didn't think this'd develop into such a long thread, but here are a few deeper thoughts on what happened.
I think one of the central failures of the campaign was the lack of time invested by other interested people, such as the Socialists, Labour, Peace Soc etc - it was left mainly to the Enviro Soc and a few others to shoulder the whole campaign, something we hadn't foreseen, but I think that our campaign was quite a good one given these problems, with a lot of debate going on around the college, and raised the issue in people's minds, something which I feel is very important, but has been largely overlooked here.
As for the issues around radicalism or the lack of it in the University, I don't think that the Nestlé or EOB comparisons stand up because in the first instance their wasn't direct sponsership to the same degree as here, and in the latter case, I think the individual in question, who they know and what they've done, is much more important in SU elections than whether one is an activist or not (though there is obviously a connection here, it isn't necessarily that strong).
As for conservatism, I think it's a fair point, perhaps better expressed as people maybe looking for a reason to vote no - Im not saying that UL is conservative to its core, just that there seems to be a leaning that direction, maybe just in recent years, speaking of the SU and the students, rather than the college. But I think there is also some validity in the criticism that we failed to mobilise the vote. In any case the issue was tilted against us my the Clubs making a statement against it, I feel.
As to people coming in, we had a speaker or two, as opposed to someone who was here just to campaign for the week - I say this to clear things up, not as an excuse.
I dunno if the SU sided against us, I think its just more the people in it are very concerned with regulations, and are prob not very inclined to agree with us anyway , as opposed to anything too systematic. Whatever, they certainly didn't help much.

by Sad UL Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:47

Just to let you know St. John

when EOB was SU president he was approached regarding a coke boycott and he didnt want to know or do anything about it

by Annoyed UL student Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:58

As a UL student, I can tell you why the Referendum failed.

Most UL students are every day faced with major problems.... MAJOR lack of library facilities, car parking, access to study rooms, books, etc. etc.

So someone goes and has a Referendum about Coke.

I mean come on, people have major worries about access to books and stuff and someone has a referendum about something happening thousands of miles away and doesn't affect most UL student.

Why the hell do you think it was rejected????

by sad ul Tue Apr 19, 2005 13:17

while I totally agree with you about the apalling lack of facilities in the university I have to say that stating that "things that happen thousands of miles away" is a sympthom of the conservatism in the college.

Just think you work about parking space and book in a university, these people worry about being killed if they ask for a fair wage.

People need to stop being so materialistic and self centered,

your worries and fears are justified but saying thins are thousands of miles away mirror excuses by people that let the holocaust happen, let rwanda happen amongst many other examples.

Are car parking and books more important than one singe human life, if you think so then we realy have a screwed up college.

Also remember than every coke you buy and drink contributes to this oppresion of people.

We are lucky here to be worrying about such things

The referendum failed because too many student cannot thnik beyond themselves

by St.John Tue Apr 19, 2005 17:58

Or perhaps a Freudian slip for those conspiracy theorists out there>>>

The front page of today's An Focal, the ULSU newspaper screams out 'Coca Cola Keep UL' - surely it's meant to be the other way around!?!?
Far be it from me to suggest anything else

On a totally unrelated topic, there was no article about the Coke boycott in An Focal in the week prior to the vote (its bi-weekly), due to concerns about libel - so we're permitted to try to ban it, with a motion stuffed full of accusations of murder, torture etc...but this can't go into the student newspaper?

by Annoyed UL student Tue Apr 19, 2005 18:06

Yes, I understand that we are all connected one way or another on this planet, the problem lies in that however much evidence or argument you will find to substantiate a claim, you will find as much to repudiate it. I know nothing about workers in Columbia. When I attempt to find out more, I find evidence both for and against that contradict one another. I don't know what to believe and frankly don't really care any more. People talk about apathy amongst youth, it is because there are too many causes and little ever gets done. I'm more worried about my college books and parking space. It affects me. There is nothing I can do about anything in Columbia and a boycott is going to do even less. It would probably go the same way as the farcical UCD boycott of Nestle product from a few years ago.

by sad ul Tue Apr 19, 2005 18:13

Lets just hope that someday you dont need help.

I presume from your text that you dont believe in human rights and our duty to defend them. I mean you can also read lots of material denying the holocaust or rwanda etc etc etc

apathy is nothing to be proud of

self centeredness is nothing to be proud off

again i say be thankful for the fact that (a) you can worry about parking spaces and (b) you have a car

every 3 seconds a child dies needlessly in the developing world from hunger, you mention nestle, a boycott is symbolic this company sells this products to mothers in developing countries knowing that water supply will cause disease, they publish material saying that breast feeding is bad.

Boycotts are symbolic, remember that boycotts against south africa were symbolic and look what happened.

But then again you dont care do you, it dosnt affect you, well pray that you never need help and come up against someone with your attitude, maybe thats why you have troubles in UL, too many people feel it dosnt affect me, so why shoudl they help you

get real leave fine gael or the Pd's or whoever is influencing you, another way is possible

by know152 Tue Apr 19, 2005 18:34

sad UL, get over yourself. an focal didn't publish because the content was legally dubious. Also, if you are organising something, better to start smal with things that people can identify with and build some crediblity. then move onto the big picture stuff.

Fact is that is what SF have been doing for years in the south.

Claiming anyone who opposing you must be in the PDs or FG shows how little you know about campaigns.

by sad ul Tue Apr 19, 2005 19:00

i never mentioned anything about an focal did I?

Honestly dont know what I am supposed to have said

and lets be honest FG or PD there are as scary as SF

by joe Wed Apr 20, 2005 14:23

As someone who was involved in the no campaign let me dispel some of the downright lies that have been written on this thread.

1. No one has been paid by coke. to suggest so is just immature.

2. The SU did not side with any side of the referendum and to be honest we found it a little unco-operative when we needed anything.

3. No one has denied where the leaflets came from . The homer simpson leaflets were used in the last campaign ( and used by the NO campaign.,)and the facts and alllegations one was sent to the SU by coca cola and not to the NO campaign. The SU were the ones responsible for those leaflets and since they were responsible for seeing that both sides had their case heard they felt they should accept the leaflets.

Can I also add that this campaign has been diffferent from the others and it is clear from it that Gearoid o Loinsigh( the man responsible for all this nonsense) is fighting a losing battle.

He was made and absolute fool out of in both meetings he attended as it became clear that his case has morphed like schizophrenic on E. His contradicted himself constantly and had no defense to the point that he was condeming people before any evidence was proven. He later went on to make personal insults and one member of the no campaign as well as labelling everybody who drinks coca cola right wing, which i think is a little unfair.

by john Wed Apr 20, 2005 14:39

Surely it is more credible to suggest that the anti coke campaigners were being paid by pepsi?

If i were in pepsi that is certainly what i would do. its an excellent way to get rid of the competition.

the anti coke people had some Very glossy leaflets with no apparent explanation of where they came from.

by UCD Limerick Wed Apr 20, 2005 16:46

Would anyone please be able to tell me why didnt ULSU take a stance on either side of the referendum? Its a bit unquie in the way that most thrid level institutions in this countrys students union have a stance and/or a policy on this contentious issue... Last time I checked the representatives of the stduents union were there to represent students within the forum of the college. An aboslute disgrace on the part of ULSU.

by know152 Wed Apr 20, 2005 20:12

I know it sounds strange to a UCDer but UL SU has always had a policy that it waits until the student body has actually expressed an opinion in a democratic forum before it takes a side on any issue.

The SU is there to represent the views of the student body, the student body in UL decide it was happy enough with the way things were.

Also, UL SU constitution asks for 2/3s support before adopting policies and that on at least 20% turnout. Which means you need support of 14% of the full student body before anything is made policy. I don't think that unreasonable. UCD on the other hand is happy with a simply majority on 10% turnout. It makes it harder for minority opinions to hijack union policy.

by UCD Limerick Thu Apr 21, 2005 14:44

I do acknowledge your sentiment but if a group of student representatives are calling for a stance to be made in relation to supporting a fellow union like sinatrinal, then does one not find it valid that they would adopt some sort of policy? (Not including that of an electoral vote)

by know152 Thu Apr 21, 2005 15:13

it was just students. It was interesting that none those contesting the exec. positions were prepared to take a side which disappointing.

by St.John Thu Apr 21, 2005 18:22

The article submitted to An Focal may have been legally dubious, but so was the motion for the referendum, and that was altered slightly, and allowed to happen.
All that would have had to happen was to add a line at the beginning saying that these are the allegations against Coke.
And An Focal has no problems changing articles, as shown by one which I submitted to the last edition (about Shell) which was rearranged and had bits added to it, altering it quite substantially.
As for the dabate on the Student's Union Stance, I dunno if it's good for them to take an official stance, but there's nothing to stop them supporting/opposing things in a personal capacity, and if there is agreement in the Union they should take a stand -but that's a matter for debate; I dunno if they really cared.

by know152 Fri Apr 22, 2005 19:26

I agree the officers who were running for election should have taken a position. I reckon next year it will be the constitution that will be put to referendum, so coke is off the agenda in UL for at least 18 months.

by know152 Wed Apr 27, 2005 19:30

Coca-Cola bottlers relocating bottling plant to NI

The Coca-Cola bottling company is merging its Dublin bottling plant with its Ulster counterpart in a new single production and warehousing site in Co Antrim.

Staff at Coca-Cola Bottlers Ireland (CCBI) were informed of the development this afternoon.

Some 1,120 people are employed in bottling plants in Dublin (Naas Road) and Lisburn (Lambeg), and depots in Galway, Cork, Killarney, Tipperary and Omagh. It employs 650 staff in the Republic and it is feared some 250 jobs could be under threat.

The site of the new €80 million plant is in Knockmore Hill in Lismore, Co Antrim, and it is expected to be open in around 18 months.

The implications for jobs are not clear at this stage; however, it is understood that the plant at the Naas Road will have to close.

by 1 of IMC Mon May 02, 2005 03:24

If you have something grown up to say that complies with our editorial guidelines - which forbid abusive, uninformative comments that add no information or arguments to a story such as you have been posting, you can say it.

If, on the other hand, you insist on spamming this site, we will eventually get annoyed enough to complain to your ISP/College/Mother Party or whoever is most effective in making you stop your abuse of this site and the other internet resources that you are abusing.

by Chris Bond - UCD Labour, UCDSU, Campaign against Killer coke Sat May 14, 2005 20:24 chrisbonn_irl_2000 at hotmail dot com

I do be amazed by some of the arguments coming from the anti boycott bandwagon. All we get is cheesy buzzwords like freedom of choice and Irish jobs. Since when is there correlation between expressing solidarity with some of the most repressed people in the world and threatening Irish jobs, or between students voting to ban coca cola products in the shops that they collectively own and denying people their 'freedom of choice'?. There is no freedom of choice in a corporate world. Since when does being able to choose which company who’s profits you want to prop up be it coke or Pepsi take precedence over the inherent rights of human beings in Columbia and India of a livelihood and freedom from repression.

Getting a message of solidarity out there is harder than one would think, brave activists in UCD against all odds got a referendum passed in the face of opposition from trade union beaurocrats, conservative elements in the Ogra Fianna Fail/L&H/Freedom institute/Young Progressive Democrats/Young Fine Gael establishment who were only working to further their own careerist ambitions. At USI congress this year we debated long and hard with careerist heads of Students unions and the president of USI both of which seemed illiterate to the concept of solidarity. But we got our motion supporting the coke boycott passed.

In the 21st century we live in a globalised world, the movement of goods and services is global, the movement of people and cultures is becoming global, its about time we globalised solidarity, our concern for the welfare of the ordinary people in India and Columbia should be no different than our concern for the welfare of people in Ireland. All Trade Unions and student unions should be full out in support of workers in Colombia, isn’t that the type of thing that Connolly and Larkin believed in.

by toneore Sat May 14, 2005 21:40 toneore at eircom dot net

Nothing published on the following meeting, reported in the FT one week ago. Why not?


Coke meets students to discuss allegation
By Andrew Ward in Atlanta
Published: May 7 2005 03:00 | Last updated: May 7 2005 03:00

Coca-Cola officials yesterday held talks with a group of US students and university administrators over allegations that the company was involved in the murder of labour activists in Colombia.

The meeting in Washington was the latest attempt by the beverage giant to clear its name amid an increasingly damaging campaign against the company by students and labour activists.


As for the IMC threat to get onto ISPs about postings they don't like, and internet "abuse", I'm sure your anti-corporate, anti-American hate mongering will give you a sympathetic ear. NOT.

by Hack Sun May 15, 2005 05:22

''As for the IMC threat to get onto ISPs about postings they don't like, and internet "abuse", I'm sure your anti-corporate, anti-American hate mongering will give you a sympathetic ear. NOT''.

Ideological clap trap