• zabadoh@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    In this case, I can believe that Chiquita didn’t set out to finance the AUC, but was unfortunate in that their banana plantations fell into AUC-controlled territory, and therefore were extorted for protection money.

    It’s like if I owned an Italian restaurant, the mafia comes in and extorts me for protection money, then the feds come and arrest me for financing the mafia. What was I supposed to do?

    edit: I didn’t know about Chiquita. Thanks for the replies and info!

    • goldenbug@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      There is enough proof in the trials to show they were not unhappily contributing to paramilitary groups.

    • JacksonLamb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      5 months ago

      No, it’s like if you owned a massive chain of Italian restaurants that notoriously exploited people, and you were actively paying the mafia to intimidate your workers and to bust unions.

      The judge saw through Chiquita’s ridiculous fabrication, I’m disappointed to see you parroting it here.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      Chiquita has been bad for a long, long time. Even among the banana companies, they’re famously evil.