just in time for today’s BASF Annual Meeting, we have once again summarized our arguments in two short videos, written a press release, submitted countermotions against the approval of activities of the Management and the Supervisory Board and have asked a number of questions.
In the spirit of this year’s Annual General Meeting – which is virtual and unfortunately offers hardly any interactive possibilities – the editorial of the third edition of the newsletter pursues the question of what actually constitutes a dialogue?
By definition, it should be a mutual exchange of arguments for the purpose of getting to know the respective points of view. Unfortunately, this definition leaves open whether and when results can be expected from dialogues. In fact, after six years of attempted dialogue with the world’s largest chemical company, our expectations are somewhat restrained. One could almost think that BASF would consider delaying tactics and the claim to be in “dialogue” with all those concerned to be one and the same.
Nevertheless, Maren Leifker of Brot für die Welt pleads for the continuation of corporate dialogues and even diagnoses a delicate glimmer of hope.
Whether this optimism in terms of “dialogue” applies also for the Annual General Meeting of the world’s largest chemical company will be brought to your attention on June 25, 2020, 14 – 16h in a webinar.
Furthermore, Boniface Mabanza puts Black Lives Matter and the campaign Plough Back The Fruits in dialogue with each other and Bishop Johannes Seoka asks for money or life?
If a court hearing is a form of dialogue under reinforced conditions, but this case, in which an Australian mine operator sued South African activists and lawyers for alleged defamation, is a particular example of how global companies can understand “dialogue” as well.
SLAPP cases (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are increasingly subject to international criticism.
Which leads to the final question whether one could talk about defamation when BASF refers in a headline on its website set up specifically for Marikana to the massacre as the ‘Marikana incident’?
Interested lawyers are welcome to contact us!
Always trying to stay in dialogue,
Campaign Plough Back The Fruits