From: Alex Ramonsky (alex@ramonsky.com)
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 03:05:23 MDT
Just one or two bits & pieces...
If anybody is doing anything 'on behalf' of a group, IMHO, several things
should happen...First, the entire group should be told about the proposed
action and discuss it long before it is taken. Democratically if anyone in
the group doesn't like what's being suggested, they can leave, or a vote can
be taken on whether such action should go ahead.
Although there is some good healthy discussion going on, it looks like the
labelling campaign is set to go ahead 'on behalf' of the group without any
such group decision or vote. (Correct me if I'm wrong; I may have missed
something here)...But tell me if I'm right...Is this going to happen?
Secondly, the repercussions of the proposed action have been discussed
regarding US law, but this group is international. What is going to be done
when some lone labeller in Manchester England gets arrested in Sainsbury's
supermarket; does s/he say "You can't touch me I've got an American lawyer".
?
Thirdly, if the proposed actions of a group affect another group (as is the
case here) a plan of strategy as to how those groups relate to each other in
public (in the press) should be clear before any action is taken. Has this
happened?
Finally, when discussing issues this potentially volatile, if surprise is an
important part of strategy, shouldn't people be using PGP ?
..And personally, I'm still wary of the fact that this particular idea
looks like (to the general public) all that is being said is "GM is bad; don
t buy it". I think this more than anything could backfire, and I still feel
that pointing out other dodgy aspects of organic foods would be a more
cautious approach...if that is what you want to do. If in actual fact the
idea is just to cause a stir at any cost, then I think all the group members
should know that, and have the opportunity to stay or withdraw.
Ramonsky
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:46 MST