Pensions Board Video Intensifies Divestment Debate

by

by

Comments (2)

Comment Feed

GBOPHB has retracted the original video and published an edited version

I have just discovered that in apparent response to the controversy, the GBOPHB has removed their original video (of which I have a downloaded copy), and replaced it with a new version which removes three graphical text overlays that were the most obvious examples of telling the central conference delegates how to vote. One was a red circle with a slash through "FORCED DIVESTMENT" that previously appeared above the logos of Caterpillar, HP, and Motorola. Also removed were the following two text overlays: "DO NOT vote for divestment" and "DO NOT vote to limit investment." I believe, however, that the original version has already been shown to a number of the central conference delegates, but I'm not sure how many will see the new vs. the old versions of their video. The begs the question that there was nothing wrong with the original presentation, then why were changes made?

David Topping more than 4 years ago

US vs Central Conference presentations

I've expressed the opinion that the video shown to central conference delegates crosses a line from presenting useful information and the opinion of the GBOPHB to telling them how to vote, which many of us consider to be inappropriate. Thanks to the link to the video of the presentation on Resolutions and Issues on Social Responsibility from the US event, it's clear that the Board's spokesperson (Colette Nies) is dissembling in her statement above.

During her 11-minute presentation to a nearly-empty room (starting at about 30' into the video), Ms. Jenkinson expressed her personal hope that the topics of human rights and climate change and their connection to UMC investment practices be thoroughly discussed at GC and that ways are found for them to continue to engage with the companies rather than to have to walk away, but she didn't even come close to urging delegates to specifically vote against any of the divestment petitions, as was most clearly done in the controversial video. This, my friends, is not a trivial difference, and is the reason for the current controversy. If after watching both videos, you can't see the extreme difference in the nature of the presentations, I suggest you keep watching until you can, because it's blatantly obvious.

David Topping more than 4 years ago