Cockfighting loan

[Guest]

.

[cpbailey]

Judy,

Way to think much bigger than Kiva!

Here is some background on a victory: http://www.hsus.org/acf/news/airlines_cease_cockfighting_shipments.html

Here is the current (?) or supposed law on cockfighting.  http://tynola.multiply.com/journal/item/12/Philippines_Cockfighting_Law_of_1974_Martial_Law

Colette

[RichardF]

Thanks Collette.  I particularly like this quote.

The get-tough on cruelty message seems to be enough to make any reputable company stop dead in its tracks.

[Visitor Number 1]

Has anyone contacted the Field Partners in Peru to determine what their policies are?

[Dagfinn]

Peru is next on my list after the Philippines, unless someone else gets to it first.

So cockfighting and cruelty to animals is a thing of the past now in the Philippines then?  To me this only shows that the engagement (I voice my opinion to all activists as a group here and no single perosn in particular) is not sincere OR misplaced.

Instead of educating and informing us non activists on this important issue one thread around as elephants at loose in a store breaking whatever comes in the way.  Opposing arguments, good or bad, are ignored as the goal is wholy and hence no worthy an answer.

Whatever a good cause this kind of behaviour is counter productive and make me even stronger than before that no way can I be on the wagon as basic fairness and ethics are threaded on.

All this coming from a people that evidently on occasion their broadcasters hovers in helicopter zooming in on bloodsheds in schoolyards were children are bleeding to death and use it as news-shows while cannot see a female nipple as.  But then, I am from a society that prefers showing a nipple on tv and refrain from displaying bloodsheds of children as entertainment.  Frankly, it seems to me that to thread on someone far away with no means to stand their case which clearly is not illegal (though maybe cruel to animals yes, yet not proven) is the name of the game.

Why, why, why - why not work WITH those people, engage them constructively so one make a lasting improvement for the sake of the animals, as well as the people in question - that would be an example to follow and responsible global citizenship in my view.

For so many years the strategy of banning and brute force have given us a track record that is far less then impressive while we do have proof that constructive and caring enagement over time do - maybe it is time to replace the tools with which this fight is fought?

Dagfinn A

[Visitor Number 1]

Why, why, why - why not work WITH those people, engage them constructively so one make a lasting improvement for the sake of the animals, as well as the people in question - that would be an example to follow and responsible global citizenship in my view.

For so many years the strategy of banning and brute force have given us a track record that is far less then impressive while we do have proof that constructive and caring enagement over time do - maybe it is time to replace the tools with which this fight is fought?

I think lender communication with the MFIs is a constructive (and as we've seen, probably the most effective) means of preventing bloodsport loans from being posted.  If the Field Partners are aware of lender objections, then they most likely will go out of their way to meet lender expectations so as not to jeopardize future funding.

I do agree with you that some of the "tough love" measures directed toward Kiva do more harm than good by diverting limited resources away from its primary objective of poverty alleviation.  These include:

1.  Redirecting resources toward screening hundreds of loans to find the proverbial "needle in the haystack".
2.  Communication with outside organizations that have a history of engaging in "counterproductive" litigation (I'm defining "counterproductive" to mean pursuing a single agenda without considering repercussions on all impacted parties - the dreadful thought of one nonprofit suing another nonprofit.  I'm sure the donors of the "losing" nonprofit would love to see how their dollars were spent).
3.  Setting a dangerous precedent of banning loans/creating exceptions.  I'm sure one lender could make a reasonable case to have another lender's favorite loan removed (gambling, tobacco, alcohol, coca leaves, not environmentally friendly, non-vegetarian, polygamous/premarital/extramarital relationships, food products high in fat/calories/cholesterol/sodium, objects that could potentially be used as weapons, etc.)

[Dagfinn]

I think lender communication with the MFIs is a constructive (and as we've seen, probably the most effective) means of preventing bloodsport loans from being posted.  If the Field Partners are aware of lender objections, then they most likely will go out of their way to meet lender expectations so as not to jeopardize future funding.

From what I have witnessed here there have not been much activity to improve the conditions for animals - the focus have been "I do not want it here where I am".  From the response by the MFI you cannot read more that they promise to do just that; not putting it at our doorstep.  In no way do that help any cause.

It comes across to me as an act in your third category in which I share your worry.  I am already worrying that "though love" as you describe it will push the entire comunity into keeping quiet as special interests command us what is ok and repercursion on other causes/people is a cost one willingly take as in its nature it is for other to foot that bill.

Is it about time that the following rules were laid down:

1. Only one post per loan.
2. Personal & real life experience mandatory before voicing an opinion.
3. An obligation to look out for all parties impacted.
4. Do not take your battles elsewehere but fight your wars on the right battlefield.
5. Accept only hard evidence.
6. Sleep on it.
7. Sleep on it (I think that is needed twice).

Let me finish with a successful story from my motherland that I think is worthwhile sharing.  NBIM (the Norwegian organsiation which manages the national sovereign wealth fund) found that banning corporation that behaved badly did not serve their cause.  So lately they tried something different; they hired in a philosher to head a new department of dialogue.  Based on research and open dialogue that asked (not demanded) for focus on their findings and how the company in question could improve the issue in question.

Now they have success, seeing a drop in child labour to give one example - a result they could not achieve with "tough love" as communication is the key element to produce a result, with a healthy dose of patience and facts of course - not to mention an open mind.

The woman in question -she got her loan before it was posted on Kiva; do we remember her name (I do not), her objective (chicken and seed If I recall correctly) and we have no idea whether the photo was of her roosters, at her property or indeed, her reason for applying for a loan.  Neither do I think she asked for herself to be put up on Kiva!  Her children need food, shelter and education as poverty is the cruelty that needs to be leveraged out here.  Making her life worse to not remove a single cockfight if that is our concern.  Engage in a dialogue with her might have done!

I am ashamed how strongly we are willing to thread upon a person that live a life that (as an average) have a lesser footprint on this planet that it can muster while we have a five (5) fold stronger footprint than our planet can sustain - if cruelty is the currency to count!


Dagfinn A

[waywardcats]

I share many of your concerns Dagfinn.  I think you raise some very valid issues.  The discussion that you and Visitor Number 1 are having here brings me back to the early days of this discussion where Diane, our wonderful KF Liaison,  laid out the slippery slope argument. 

(5) The suspected cockfighting loan, and related issues
Liz and I had a fairly long conversation about this topic, including all the pros and cons of various "solutions" which were discussed in chat and PMs.  The short answer is that Kiva will, at this time, only reject outright loans for any practices that are illegal in the country from which they are posted.  Kiva's mission is "to connect people through lending for the sake of alleviating poverty".  While it would be wonderful if Kiva could do even more good, it is not their mission, and pretty much every suggestion about keeping "immoral" or "undesireable" loans off the site has a slippery slope side to it as well: chicha corn liquor in Peru may not bother one person, but another may be morally outraged about it; selling meat or leather belts may not bother most, but others find it reprehensible; posting loans from countries where polygamy is practiced may be fine with some yet anathema to others; even the definition of "animal cruelty" may vary among individuals.  Our discussion centered on the way Kiva might participate in an industry-wide approach to having an impact on MFIs to move to change things in their own practices and countries. 

It is because the activism of a subset of lenders can be effective in having loans they find to be morally questionable removed from the Kiva site that this activism worries me.  Other groups now have a blueprint to involving others and crying out for an end to loans to polygamous entrepreneurs or coca leaf growers as has been previously discussed.  However, I still do think that activists have every right to voice their opinions and feelings.  Which brings me to this part of your post:

Is it about time that the following rules were laid down:

1. Only one post per loan.
2. Personal & real life experience mandatory before voicing an opinion.
3. An obligation to look out for all parties impacted.
4. Do not take your battles elsewehere but fight your wars on the right battlefield.
5. Accept only hard evidence.
6. Sleep on it.
7. Sleep on it (I think that is needed twice).

Dagfinn A

As much as some of us may be weary of this discussion, it is still a valuable one.  I do not think that restricting conversation here at Kiva Friends is a good idea. I am not sure if you mean one post per person per (suspected cockfighting) loan, or something else, but I do not feel comfortable asking people to limit themselves if they feel they need to say something more and yet they have already posted once.

As for proposed "rules" 2-5, these can be somewhat subjective.  We all have life experiences and I do not want to start getting into silencing voices because someone else thinks that that persons experiences are somehow not (I don't even know what to say here - adequate? applicable? relevant?)  Everyone here has a right to voice an opinion, imo. 

I agree that the evidence that this most recent loan was for cockfighting is based upon things seen in a picture that show the borrower with a certain breed of bird.  Were they really her birds?  Only the loan officer will know for sure if he or she took the picture in front of the entrepreneur's home or business.  At this point I think we may never know unless we hear something back from the MFI that the picture was taken in her neighbor's yard and she is not actually in the business.  But I agree that it would be good to ask more questions and perhaps get clarifications before jumping to conclusions based on what we see in borrower profile pictures.

As far as number 6 and 7, I think this is good advice.  And will repeat the wisdom of Diane and others who have said "think twice, post once".

Thanks Dagfinn for raising some interesting issues,

-Kerry-

[Dagfinn]

I must hurry to say I tried to write those 7 (seven to be a good number:) "rules" as a wry and ironic view on us all here.    Else, I read your post with interest and welcome your tone of writing also 

Mostly I share your concern that one will lobby for a certain point of view and be willing to go far in achieveing that. I think that in practise Kiva have taken the one possible stand on this, all sides counted in.  In school I was taught that one should use one's right of free speach to advocate for change as one believed in, but accept the law while exercising it.  Later on I have experienced that it is only possible if we live in a good and safe democracy with strong institutions to uphold it.

When things are differently many of us find we cannot afford that luxury as to keep our children safe, with food and a future takes precedence.

I think I too often forget that aspect which is a daily struggle for so many - and in which the basic cruelty of life lies.


Dagfinn A

edited for spelling again

[Marilee]

My my, what an active topic.  I've been lurking since April on this one, but I'm seeing more and more support for a tactic that troubles me, which is lenders going directly to the MFI.

Why does this trouble me?  Because:

1) It threatens transparency, as someone else has already pointed out.  If I were running an MFI, I'd start underdescribing or outright lying about the purpose of loans that might be found offensive.

2) There are a lot of people offended by a lot of things.  I don't want this tactic used by groups who have a problem with a health clinic distributing birth control, and if they try it, I don't want the MFI to respect it.

If Kiva laid out in published written policy that a certain kind of loan should not be listed on the site, that would be a clear-cut line for the MFI.  They wouldn't have to guess, or wait to hear from the angry mob.  If Kiva decided to add bloodsports to the forbidden list, that would be clear. (Don't do it, or risk losing your funding.)

If Kiva decided to require clearer categorization of controversial loan types, that would be a clear-cut line for the MFI.  (Your loan is okay, just be aware that it's a sensitive issue and label it clearly.)

Unclear loans, and the ethics of what, as an organization, Kiva is willing to be a conduit for, are Kiva's responsibility to address, not ours to protest to the MFIs until they get nervous.

Fair disclosure on my perspective: I got my library degree pretty recently.  The pattern of "people yell, organization gets nervous, organization hides the controversial stuff" is how book banning happens.  I don't want it to be how we do business.

[TheTatiana]

Dagfinn, I appreciate your point of view, however, I must respectfully disagree with it.  It doesn't matter if our actions in protest to blood sports don't have the effect immediately of ending all animal cruelty in the country, or the world.  By that standard, a bus boycott in one town in the southern U.S. didn't end racial discrimination in our country, and so it wasn't worthwhile.  I believe, on the contrary, that standing up for something you believe in is always worthwhile.  It exposes people to ideas that they may never have considered before, and allows them to make a meaningful choice of how to respond.  It also encourages and empowers others to follow suit.  Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither is any good thing accomplished instantly.  You have to keep a sustained effort up over a long period of time, sometimes, for success to follow.

So while I see what you're saying, I disagree with your conclusion.

Best wishes,
Tatiana