Come Monday I'll call Miriam and see how she's coming with her
attempts to get back on the internet.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/5/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Published on
Wednesday, August 05, 2020
byCommon Dreams
Rights Groups Raise Alarm Over Upcoming Supreme Court Case That Could Turn
US Into 'Safe Haven' for Abusive Corporations
"Rather than work to stop child slavery, Nestle and Cargill want legal
immunity to continue profiting from child slavery."
byJulia Conley, staff writer
Two multinational food corporations are asking the Supreme Court to
reinterpret the Alien Tort Statute, a law dating back to 1789 which gives
federal courts jurisdiction to hear lawsuits filed by non-U.S. citizens
regarding violations of international law. (Photo: wbentprice / Flickr)
The U.S. Supreme Court could soon turn the nation into "a safe haven for
human rights abusers," rights groups said Wednesday, raising alarm over the
court's plan to hear arguments from Nestlé and Cargill about a lawsuit
brought against the companies in 2005.
The two multinational food corporations are asking the Supreme Court to
reinterpret the Alien Tort Statute, which dates back to 1789 and gives
federal courts jurisdiction to hear lawsuits filed by non-U.S. citizens
regarding violation of international law. The court said last month it
would
hear the appeal in the fall.
Fifteen years after six Malian people brought a case against Nestlé and
Cargill, alleging they were abused while working on Ivory Coast cocoa farms
used by the companies, Nestlé and Cargill are arguing that the Alien Tort
Statute can only be used to indict individuals, not corporations.
A ruling in the companies' favor "would be bad news for human rights," the
Fair World Project tweeted.
"If they win this appeal, they will have succeeded in denuding the major
human rights tool that activists have in court," Terrence Collingsworth,
executive director of International Rights Advocates, which is representing
the plaintiffs, told The Guardian Wednesday.
The companies' appeal follows more than a decade of federal court decisions
regarding the case. Most recently, a California circuit court ruled Nestlé
and Cargill could be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute.
The six plaintiffs allege they were kidnapped from Mali and taken to farms
in the Ivory Coast where they were physically abused and forced to work
without pay for up to 14 hours per day—an ordeal from which Nestlé and
Cargill allegedly profited.
The two companies say they have not worked with farms that use child labor
or forced labor, and Nestlé has stated that all parties involved in the
case
have previously said the company did not engage in child labor.
A high court ruling in favor of Cargill and Nestlé would be a
"nail-in-the-coffin moment" for corporate accountability, Charity Ryerson
of
Corporate Accountability Lab told The Guardian.
Should the court rule as the companies hope it will, plaintiffs would need
to present evidence that specific company leaders at Nestlé and Cargill
signed off on the use of child labor, a "virtually impossible" feat,"
Collingsworth told The Guardian.
"This would effectively allow [some companies] to continue using child
slaves with impunity," he added.
Companies would be disincentivized by the potential ruling to monitor their
supply chains and would become "potentially more abusive" toward workers,
Ryerson warned.
Last month, when the Supreme Court announced it would hear Nestlé and
Cargill's appeal, International Rights Advocates slammed the companies for
"arguing that corporations should be absolutely immune under international
law."
"Rather than work with IRAdvocates and others to stop child slavery, Nestlé
and Cargill want legal immunity to continue profiting from child slavery,"
said the group. "Win or lose in the Supreme Court, we must and will
continue
the fight to force these companies to free the children."
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
