Updated – Slavery on Trial

By Clay Gordon | 3 years ago | 6 min read

A room on Clubhouse was scheduled for July 28th with Special Guests Terry Collingsworth of International Rights Advocates and Ayn Riggs of SlaveFreeChocolate_org.

Listen to the Podcast

Topics Discussed in the Room

What the recent Supreme Court decision means in practice;
How the current International Rights Advocate suit under the TVPRA in the DC Circuit Court differs from the ATS suit;
What the Customs Border Protection (CBP) petition is about;
Other strategies and tactics – boycotts, petitions – in addition to legal challenges and their effectiveness; and
What possible – and desirable – outcomes would be, should either suit result in a decision favorable to the plaintiffs in either case.

Are there other topics you’d like to see discussed in this room? Leave them in the Comments.

[Jul 28 11:30am EDT] – Clubhouse links have been removed because they expire when the room ends.

TVPRA Update – August 2nd

Link to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (PDF, 59 pages)

TL;DR

The defendants argue, in part, that the plaintiffs lack Article III standing, saying “the plaintiff’s alleged injuries are not fairly traceable to the defendants,” and there is no direct connection between the plaintiffs and the defendants or their alleged traffickers; nor are there any indirect connections.

There is more of the same in the memorandum to dismiss and it makes for interesting reading, though difficult treading at times if you’re not familiar with reading legal documents like these.

The arguments being made, IMO, are entirely technico-legal in nature, engaging the language of the complaint with respect to the provisions of the TVPRA, essentially dismissing out of hand the industry’s voluntary commitments under Harkin-Engel. For Reasons.

I get that lawyers are supposed to vigorously defend their clients. It is their responsibility to do so. However, I find the arguments presented on behalf of the defendants in this case – Barry Callebaut USA, Cargill Incorporated/Cargill Cocoa, The Hershey Company, Mars, Incorporated/Mars Wrigley Confectionery US, LLC, Néstle USA, Inc., Mondelēz International, Inc., and Olam Americas, Inc. – not only morally bankrupt and indefensible they are reprehensible.

I have already made the conscious decision not to purchase any products from any of these companies where it is possible for me to readily identify their involvement – in any way – in the growing, manufacturing, or distribution of these products.

I am also going to take the extraordinary step of refusing to cover or review any new product introduction from any of these companies or their affiliates / brands.

Links to Background & Resources

The Recent SCOTUS Decision

Clubhouse Podcast featuring special guest Shawn Askinosie.

Docket for 19-416

The official docket (list of filings, etc) in the SCOTUS case.

OpEd About the SCOTUS Opinion

The CBP (Customs & Border Protection) Petition

Link to the petition filed by International Rights Advocates (PDF)

The TVPRA Suit in the DC Circuit Court

Link to the complaint filed by International Rights Advocates (PDF)

TVPRA – William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (PDF) on uscis.org

About the TVPRA

The Freedom Commons | International Justice Mission

Link to the NORC (National Opinion Research Center) Report (PDF) on norc.org

Organizational and General

*One* way being proposed to inform consumers about the “ethical footprint” of what they are buying.

Featured Image: Original by Rod Long on Unsplash. (Edited in LuminarAI.)

Have a question you want to ask our special guests, or have some thoughts you would like shared during the Clubhouse room and with readers here on TheChocolateLife? Add them in the Comments below.