Op Ed: The Unethical Boycott of Whole Foods Inc.

Censorship Issues, Corporate Responsibility, Human Rights, Protests, aclu, activists, boycotts, censorship, editorial, health care, health issues

 Aug 25/2009

Op Ed: The Unethical Boycott of Whole Foods Inc.

By Steven Bradley Scott

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. ~John Stuart Mill,On Liberty, 1859

It is difficult to talk about freedom of speech without getting on a soap box.  However, I feel a moral responsibility, as many others have already stood on theirs and launched vicious attacks to suppress free speech. The most recent case of this would be the call to boycott Whole Foods Inc. by the organization Single Payer Action .  

 The reason behind the boycott is that “…Mackey has launched a public campaign to defeat single payer national health insurance.”  If you haven’t already, you should go read the statement calling for the boycott.

What is perplexing about this article, more than anything, is its use of rhetoric illogic to promote its fundamental goal; to punish a man and the company he runs for speaking his mind.  Quoting Mackey, the statement is made “We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health…” which Single Payer Action promptly agrees with.  They then go on to say that “…we are all responsible for our own civic lives and our own civic health.

  We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom and make wise civic and consumer choices that will protect our nation’s health.”  And there, in essence, is the rub.  The essential belief is that, by boycotting Whole Foods Inc. stores, members of Single Payer Action will be protecting the nation’s health.  They believe this is true because they believe that the actions and statements of the CEO have been a danger to the health care reform bill’s progress.  The goal, then, is to quiet the CEO’s political opinions, thus quelling resistance to the current bill.  It’s not unreasonable, either, that they would be successful.

  A mass reduction in Whole Foods Inc. profit margins would be seen as the direct result of the CEO’s political statement, stock prices would drop, and the company’s stakeholders would likely gag Mackey.  If Mackey is squelched, then the US will be one step closer to health care reform and preventing the 60 deaths of “…Americans every day due to lack of health insurance.”

 So, that’s the plan and the desired effect, but is it just?

 I believe not.

  Fear, especially mob fear, is manipulative.  It leads to unjust persecution, torture, discrimination, ignorance, and (most significantly in this case) oppression.  To illustrate this, allow me to cut away all of the unnecessary details of what has occurred, placing this conflict in its most rudimentary form to see where it leads.  You have two groups: Group A and Group B.  Group A currently has control of the government, but requires Group B’s consent to pass bills, and they have just proposed one.  Group B is concerned about the bill and many of its members have written about it.  Group A is upset by this, saying that Group B is spreading lies, which may or may not be true.  Nonetheless, for each Group B member who writes about it, Group A has decided to place an economic sanction on Group B.  I credit my reader to see where I am going with this – it is unjust for a party to take actions to quiet another party in order to push through legislation.  In addition, it is a dangerous precedent to set.

  Imagine that the situation was flipped, from a left/right political perspective, with the Chapters CEO spoke out against Abu Ghraib.  Then, let’s say the Republican Party responded by picketing outside of Chapters and boycotting it.  How about another, more extreme example?  Say the government decided to go to war and those who agreed began raiding shops whose owners dissented.  This would be dangerous and violent behavior, but the effect is the same, and the effect is the issue.

  The point is clear, if this was applied equally to both sides, it would be seen as unfair by both.  Naturally, that is what’s happening.  When we break our code of ethics we can offer no ethical ground on which to stand.  When we break our laws, such as those related to freedom of speech, we invite others to break them as well.  I thought the last eight years of the imprisonment and torture of innocent men in Guantanamo Bay would have taught us that; sadly, I was wrong.

To believe in free speech, is to refute those who would suppress the expression of free opinions, regardless of their nature. 

~”Steven Scott has been described as an intellectual dissenter and an
advocate for free speech and human rights. He currently resides in
Waterloo, Ontario.”

contact editor@GlobalPundit.Org

admin @ August 25, 2009