6 ms·

I don't think we want to foster a sense that we're okay with companies being completely amoral just because everyone's tired of politics. We need to draw lines

I don't think we want to foster a sense that we're okay with companies being completely amoral just because everyone's tired of politics. We need to draw lines on basis of basic decency, i.e not supporting slavery, child trafficking and such. Then the discussion comes back to "but where is the line" and bam, we're back into politics. The American family separation thing the person above you mentioned, for instance, falls into the line of unacceptable for me, but for some people it's an acceptable response to illegal immigration. This is, indeed, very, very hard.

azangru 6y ago
Can't this be achieved through legal or properly political means? If child trafficking is outlawed then a company cannot engage in child trafficking. If petrol cars are outlawed, then a company cannot manufacture petrol cars.
- runarberg 6y ago
  I wish, but that is not the world we live in. Child separation is probably illegal under the universal deceleration of human rights (which the USA has ratified). Article 16 (3): > The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. When a government sanctioned agency engages in something that is probably illegal (and definitely immoral) and you still think they are worthy of your business, you are complicit in their actions.
  - AdamJacobMuller 6y ago
    You moved the benchmark from "child trafficking" to "child separation." Many would argue, correctly or not, that the policies of not having children housed with whatever adult they cross the border with is in service of avoiding child trafficking.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      Sorry about that, it is just that ICE were probably breaking the law when they engaged in child separation. The parent is asking if it couldn’t simply be the case that evil things would rather be illegal then up to a company. Unfortunately we demonstrably live in a world where evil things that are probably illegal are still done by a government sanction agencies. Child separation is the thing that they do which demonstrates this. That is why I moved the benchmark.
      - AdamJacobMuller 6y ago
        I don't see the link between: > The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. and: "children and their parents must be housed together when incarcerated" That clause (perhaps the entire UN declaration of human rights) seems incredibly ambiguous. Reading the whole declaration seems like it, perhaps, means protection of the specific enumerated rights of part 16 sections 1/2 which seems basically like the right for anyone to marry or not anyone they want and for that person to terminate the marriage when they choose.
        runarberg 6y ago
        ICE didn’t just separate the family units during incarceration, they also failed to reunify them on release. They also forcibly sterilized other asylum seekers which is a whole another human rights violation. The USA has also signed—though not ratified—the 1989 Declaration of the Rights of the Child which has more explicit protections. I believe this was confirmed in US courts as they quickly issued an injunction of this practice. There is also the issue of why they are incarcerated in the first place. They have committed no crime, migration and seeking refuge is protected under international law. The UN universal declaration of human rights is written to be easily accessible and understood by the general public. And given that it was written 75 years ago I think they did a good job. I actually recommend everyone to read it entirely in your native language, as it has probably been translated into it and will only take a few minutes. A beautiful document indeed. The important thing here though is not how rigorously defined these rights are, but the spirit of the law is clearly saying that the family is a fundamental unit of society. Separating the family unit is a failure to uphold that principal.
kortilla 6y ago
> We need to draw lines on basis of basic decency, i.e not supporting slavery, child trafficking and such. You do know that the very child separation policy you decry was implemented specifically to prevent child trafficking and keeping children away from people that can’t be verified to be related?
- markdown 6y ago
  In what world does separating them from their parents, shipping them 2000 miles away and giving them away to evangelical groups a solution to any problem? Kidnapping doesn't cease to be kidnapping just because it was done by a government official.
- chowchowchow 6y ago
  You’re doing politics.
- farias0 6y ago
  No, the child separation policy I decry is the byproduct of the zero tolerance policy regarding illegal immigration on the current administration. It does not matter if there is suspicion of child trafficking or not. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/us/politics/family-separation-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/us/politics/family-separa...
  - zalkota 6y ago
    Who built the cages? OBAMA
- krageon 6y ago
  What the thoughts behind it are doesn't matter. What the reality is does. The reality is terrible, so it should not be supported.
fierarul 6y ago
Don't the current laws define the lines on basic decency? That's what the companies should follow. And I believe many should strive for that instead: there's loads of companies doing illegal things to their employees! So, being political at a company level means defining a morals for companies that transcends de jure laws. Which is, basically, another set of uber-laws but without any real oversight nor finesse. In the end refusing selling a computer to ICE should be like refusing to sell a soda to a black person: a clear case of discrimination. And companies should be threatened with dissolution if so; moral focused groups can then just create foundations or churches instead.

azangru 6y ago

Can't this be achieved through legal or properly political means? If child trafficking is outlawed then a company cannot engage in child trafficking. If petrol cars are outlawed, then a company cannot manufacture petrol cars.

runarberg 6y ago
I wish, but that is not the world we live in. Child separation is probably illegal under the universal deceleration of human rights (which the USA has ratified). Article 16 (3): > The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. When a government sanctioned agency engages in something that is probably illegal (and definitely immoral) and you still think they are worthy of your business, you are complicit in their actions.
- AdamJacobMuller 6y ago
  You moved the benchmark from "child trafficking" to "child separation." Many would argue, correctly or not, that the policies of not having children housed with whatever adult they cross the border with is in service of avoiding child trafficking.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    Sorry about that, it is just that ICE were probably breaking the law when they engaged in child separation. The parent is asking if it couldn’t simply be the case that evil things would rather be illegal then up to a company. Unfortunately we demonstrably live in a world where evil things that are probably illegal are still done by a government sanction agencies. Child separation is the thing that they do which demonstrates this. That is why I moved the benchmark.
    - AdamJacobMuller 6y ago
      I don't see the link between: > The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. and: "children and their parents must be housed together when incarcerated" That clause (perhaps the entire UN declaration of human rights) seems incredibly ambiguous. Reading the whole declaration seems like it, perhaps, means protection of the specific enumerated rights of part 16 sections 1/2 which seems basically like the right for anyone to marry or not anyone they want and for that person to terminate the marriage when they choose.
      - runarberg 6y ago
        ICE didn’t just separate the family units during incarceration, they also failed to reunify them on release. They also forcibly sterilized other asylum seekers which is a whole another human rights violation. The USA has also signed—though not ratified—the 1989 Declaration of the Rights of the Child which has more explicit protections. I believe this was confirmed in US courts as they quickly issued an injunction of this practice. There is also the issue of why they are incarcerated in the first place. They have committed no crime, migration and seeking refuge is protected under international law. The UN universal declaration of human rights is written to be easily accessible and understood by the general public. And given that it was written 75 years ago I think they did a good job. I actually recommend everyone to read it entirely in your native language, as it has probably been translated into it and will only take a few minutes. A beautiful document indeed. The important thing here though is not how rigorously defined these rights are, but the spirit of the law is clearly saying that the family is a fundamental unit of society. Separating the family unit is a failure to uphold that principal.

kortilla 6y ago

> We need to draw lines on basis of basic decency, i.e not supporting slavery, child trafficking and such. You do know that the very child separation policy you decry was implemented specifically to prevent child trafficking and keeping children away from people that can’t be verified to be related?

markdown 6y ago
In what world does separating them from their parents, shipping them 2000 miles away and giving them away to evangelical groups a solution to any problem? Kidnapping doesn't cease to be kidnapping just because it was done by a government official.
chowchowchow 6y ago
You’re doing politics.
farias0 6y ago
No, the child separation policy I decry is the byproduct of the zero tolerance policy regarding illegal immigration on the current administration. It does not matter if there is suspicion of child trafficking or not. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/us/politics/family-separation-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/us/politics/family-separa...
- zalkota 6y ago
  Who built the cages? OBAMA
krageon 6y ago
What the thoughts behind it are doesn't matter. What the reality is does. The reality is terrible, so it should not be supported.

fierarul 6y ago

Don't the current laws define the lines on basic decency? That's what the companies should follow. And I believe many should strive for that instead: there's loads of companies doing illegal things to their employees! So, being political at a company level means defining a morals for companies that transcends de jure laws. Which is, basically, another set of uber-laws but without any real oversight nor finesse. In the end refusing selling a computer to ICE should be like refusing to sell a soda to a black person: a clear case of discrimination. And companies should be threatened with dissolution if so; moral focused groups can then just create foundations or churches instead.