Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

Regardless of what coke does in other countries, the fact is we're getting money for something we would be doing already. I don't get how anyone can reasonably turn that down.

Well Andrew you have to realize all people aren't this Libertarian

Even if we ignore the notion of having free & unrestricted consumer choices Coke still owns percentages of foreign multinational branches of theirs. It is controlled from their headquarters in USA. Plus apparently raw materials are found in Columbia(Cocoa?! I never knew Coke had that). People think that hurting Coke financially, even if it is as insignificant as a University in Canada is a major form of consumer rebellion against their practices.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

Regardless of what coke does in other countries, the fact is we're getting money for something we would be doing already. I don't get how anyone can reasonably turn that down.

Agreed. If you are going to get noble you have to go all the way, and that would mean you would have to ban Coke outright along with any other company that doesn't have a shiny clean business record.

Originally Posted by creen

Maybe someone should ask them?

Where can I see numbers of the offer? Or the offer itself?

There isn't an offer on the table right now; this referendum gives certain permissions to the MSU and hopefully the Administration(who usually agree with/follow what referendums say) when they re-negotiate it.

The MSU doesn't have access to it right now; I can double check tommorwo

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

Cocoa?! I never knew Coke had that

Not Cocoa (which is chocolate) but Coca, which is the plant that cocaine is derived from. Coke's original recipe included cocaine in it... they still use the plant for flavouring purposes.

Originally Posted by Nosh

hey , just to let you in on an almost unknown fact there are actually pepsi products on campus , in Divinity college

You are awesome. What is the cost like?

Originally Posted by Taunton

Not Cocoa (which is chocolate) but Coca, which is the plant that cocaine is derived from. Coke's original recipe included cocaine in it... they still use the plant for flavouring purposes.

Coca is still used by the Indigenous populations today. Because they live at high altitudes and there isn't always a lot of food available they chew on the Coca leaves to keep them going throughout the day when they are farming.

The MSU Election Committee has approved the text of the ballot. The referendum question will be: "Should the McMaster Students Union be able to negotiate and enter into an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola if the opportunity arises?"

Voting will be February 3-4, concurrent with the MSU presidential election.

Ugh, the whole thing was to have a clause added into the schools rules saying that the university/MSU reserves the right to drop any contract if the company is involved in any human rights violations, or accused with some evidence(legal system can fail). The last part can easily be defended as saying the university doesnt want to be dragged down when the company is getting slandered even if the accusations are true or not. A lot of places have clauses like that, a catch all so they can drop the contract if they want to (officially if it might damage the school's image/reputation).


And the "all or nothing" argument is kinda bullshit, because if we all acted that way, it would be the "nothing" option and a lot of people would suffer. Typically, thinking in extremes like that shows lack of understanding of a situation. This is a complex problem, not a simple one.

Originally Posted by creen

Agreed. If you are going to get noble you have to go all the way, and that would mean you would have to ban Coke outright along with any other company that doesn't have a shiny clean business record.

If there were Red List for Companies that had a shiny clean business record and were are at the same time very succesful i would deem it 'EW' --> Extinct in the Wild.

Originally Posted by Rossclot

Ugh, the whole thing was to have a clause added into the schools rules saying that the university/MSU reserves the right to drop any contract if the company is involved in any human rights violations, or accused with some evidence(legal system can fail). The last part can easily be defended as saying the university doesnt want to be dragged down when the company is getting slandered even if the accusations are true or not. A lot of places have clauses like that, a catch all so they can drop the contract if they want to (officially if it might damage the school's image/reputation).


And the "all or nothing" argument is kinda bullshit, because if we all acted that way, it would be the "nothing" option and a lot of people would suffer. Typically, thinking in extremes like that shows lack of understanding of a situation. This is a complex problem, not a simple one.

The Election's committee was restricted in the line of questioning they could adopt because this referendum was brought forward due to a motion by a MSU member in the MSU general assembly last year. The SRA then approved that motion at a subsequent meeting. Hence EC didn't have that much of a freedom over what it could do with it.

would it help workers if msu banned coke on campus, told the media. etc. ? if it would, do it. if it won't, then don't

Originally Posted by andrew22

would it help workers if msu banned coke on campus, told the media. etc. ? if it would, do it. if it won't, then don't

There is something wrong with that reasoning! But I think it would be better if you think about it and realize it yourselves!

If the world worked like that there would be absolutely no change in our global society at ALL. I can think of thousands of examples.

Originally Posted by andrew22

would it help workers if msu banned coke on campus, told the media. etc. ? if it would, do it. if it won't, then don't

This is not in the same context of the referendum, since voting 'No' doesn't mean that Coke products would be banned on campus, but...

There was a point where Canadian municipalities banned Pepsi products as a result of their association with human rights injustices in Burma (now Myanmar). It was similar in that Pepsi didn't take responsibility for the paramilitaries' actions, yet the paramilitary 'enforced' the manufacturers rules. This financially hurt Pepsi and the company tried to reverse the legislation than banned the products in the first place.

Similarly, in Vancouver the city used Exxon Mobil as their main source of fossil fuels. However, after there was exposure of sinking old oil tankers to the bottom of the ocean and terrible human rights violations in Nigeria, they switched to a competitor. This action caused the company to rethink their global practices.

Source: No Logo by Naomi Klein, I'd give page numbers and/or the actual references in the back of the book, but it's at my home address at the moment.

so sounds like it might help workers, future workers.


ban it when you get a chance?

(Jay r u in amnesty international? you guys seem lowkey on campus, maybe I just didn't notice)

Yes but the thing is, Coke's involvement with the deaths of Union workers has never been proven, even circumstantially. A lot of the evidence is hearsay, and a lot of it is flip-flopped on.

There is no reliable first-hand information from unbiased parties. All the anti-Coke people neglect to report on the progress Coke has made in affected areas and rely on anecdotal evidence from decades ago, stuff which has changed a lot in the past 10 years.

The fact of the matter is, Colombia is a country which is embroiled in many conflicts, the least of which is the fact that it is the center of the global Cocaine routes. The country has been in de facto civil war between cartels, paramilitary rebel groups and the government for the past 50 years. In the middle of this, there is no accuracy in information, and nothing has been proven due to the fog of war over all these situations.

We can't just make blind leaps of faith and assume that Coke is a bad corporation and vote accordingly. If Coke is proven to be engaging in the things they have been accused of, then we can make a stand.