Below is why I think the case of defamation against Basel Action Network is long overdue.
The defamation case I'd suggest is as follows. Whether or not Intercon exported hazardous waste, BAN did not know what exactly Intercon supposedly shipped at the time they notified China's EPA. BAN also knows that China considers used tested working laptops to be hazardous waste. BAN also knows, that when they broadcast the Chinese determination, that most people will assume the "crime" to be shipping raw unsorted junk, 80% waste, to a yard where children will burn it. BAN knows about "profiling" the export market - because BAN invented the profile, and makes all their cash from it.
This may be Little Big Horn. BAN may have finally bitten off more than they can chew. The Intercon Case looks to me like STRIKE THREE vs. the Basel Action Network
It is Criminal in China to import "second hand" material. The Chinese Communist Party owns factories which make new goods, and is not shy about enforcing its plans for obsolescence. If BAN were a local activist group, they could be forgiven for making the assumption that an unknown - working laptop, repairable monitor, or bale of Christmas Tree lights, might be hazardous. But they play it both ways, as the foremost most knowledgeable, certifying authority, and the well-meaning activist "just asking questions".
BAN shifts nimbly from legal expert, to paid representative, to a hyping watchdog. In this particular case, of the Chicago Heights recycler, BAN knows that the container may have contained A) working equipment, B) scrap sent to an honorable professional recycler, or C) perhaps hazardous waste for children to burn... but BAN did not know which one when they made their announcement... because the Chinese source (whom they notified to inspect) makes NO distinction between these "second hand" goods.
In this particular case, when BAN informed the Chinese that Intercon had shipped the containerload, the determination by the Chinese official to call the second-hand goods (working, repairable, recyclable, or waste) a "hazardous waste" was a virtual certainty.
At a conference in Washington DC, EPA, Interpol officials met for a special session on "e-Waste" exports. Jim Puckett was in attendance, and was a speaker. On the same day, a speaker from the Sino EPA in Hong Kong spoke to the group in English. He spoke about "green wastes", a listing China was going to propose to improve imports. He also spoke about China's intention to stop "trans-boundary" movement of containers which change ships in Hong Kong's port.
[The latter was quite disturbing to me... China may be the competent authority for what is defined as "waste" and "hazardous" within China (though it may not, the courts in Hong Kong would allow a suit to bring Department of Commerce in to challenge a "non-commodity" or "non-property" ruling). But for China to say it can declare a commodity to be "waste" when it is shipped from Party A to Party B, and enters the port of China (Party C) in transit, is an alarming precedent to announce.]
I raised my hand from the audience and was called on to ask a question. It was a question I had asked Chinese EPA officials in Hong Kong a few years earlier. I had been told that China identifies ANYTHING "second hand" to be waste. I asked whether, if I brought a one-week old fully functional tested working laptop with me to China, and decided to give it as a gift to a Chinese host, whether my prior use of the laptop rendered it "waste" and "hazardous waste". The Chinese Official (I can find his name) said I was right, it's an environmental crime. That the laptop was second hand, and contained circuit boards, and therefore it would be an illegal transboundary movement in China.
Second-hand is defined as "waste" in China. So a Chinese "discovery" of second hand equipment may sound a lot worse than it is. You just don't know until you get the contents of the container.
BAN's leader Jim Puckett was at this meeting, and he and I have had this discussion in person, and he knows full well that China would identify any tested working equipment as "hazardous waste". According to his website, he's been an expert in these laws for over a decade. By contrast, Basel Convention (Annex IX B1110) considers even non-working second-hand equipment to be potentially commodity and not waste (if sent for repair), and the USA considers the intent of the buyer and shipper in the determination. BAN has its own definition involving removal of parts prior to repair (no one in the world does this, to my knowledge). The point is that the "determination" is used by BAN in its press release to confuse journalists, just as they confused CBS, PBS, and Terry Gross about the "80%" of the world which generates half of all e-waste on their own.
BAN is an expert on these issues of determination and trade barriers, and yet claims they relied on the inspection of a Chinese authority in making a public announcement about Intercon. BAN cannot claim not to know that the definition of the Chinese authority included non-hazardous and even working items. (In fact there is a WTO lawsuit over China's use of environmental labels as a non-tariff trade barrier). By telling China that Intercon had shipped a container, and that Intercon was a trader in second-hand electronics, BAN had basically set in motion a test which Intercon would fail no matter what the contents of Intercon's containers. If BAN didn't know the contents to start with, it was a reckless act to sick the Chinese enforcer on the container in the first place. And the signs are that BAN couldn't wait to announce what they were going to announce... they launched at Intercon the same way as they launched at Asian and African businesspeople in the past.
China's interpretation of second-hand makes it a watchdog that bites everybody, criminals, children, and mailmen. I know that, and BAN knows that. But the American public is going to believe that there was a criminal involved, based on BAN's "information" that 80% of all USA second hand goods are wastes burned in primitive conditions.
Did BAN defame Intercon? We know for a fact that BAN is in the defamation business. It's what they do. They defame people every day... this was Strike 3. Perhaps this time they defamed the wrong guy.
The defamation case I'd suggest is as follows. Whether or not Intercon exported hazardous waste, BAN did not know what exactly Intercon supposedly shipped at the time they notified China's EPA. BAN also knows that China considers used tested working laptops to be hazardous waste. BAN also knows, that when they broadcast the Chinese determination, that most people will assume the "crime" to be shipping raw unsorted junk, 80% waste, to a yard where children will burn it. BAN knows about "profiling" the export market - because BAN invented the profile, and makes all their cash from it.
This may be Little Big Horn. BAN may have finally bitten off more than they can chew. The Intercon Case looks to me like STRIKE THREE vs. the Basel Action Network
It is Criminal in China to import "second hand" material. The Chinese Communist Party owns factories which make new goods, and is not shy about enforcing its plans for obsolescence. If BAN were a local activist group, they could be forgiven for making the assumption that an unknown - working laptop, repairable monitor, or bale of Christmas Tree lights, might be hazardous. But they play it both ways, as the foremost most knowledgeable, certifying authority, and the well-meaning activist "just asking questions".BAN shifts nimbly from legal expert, to paid representative, to a hyping watchdog. In this particular case, of the Chicago Heights recycler, BAN knows that the container may have contained A) working equipment, B) scrap sent to an honorable professional recycler, or C) perhaps hazardous waste for children to burn... but BAN did not know which one when they made their announcement... because the Chinese source (whom they notified to inspect) makes NO distinction between these "second hand" goods.
In this particular case, when BAN informed the Chinese that Intercon had shipped the containerload, the determination by the Chinese official to call the second-hand goods (working, repairable, recyclable, or waste) a "hazardous waste" was a virtual certainty.
At a conference in Washington DC, EPA, Interpol officials met for a special session on "e-Waste" exports. Jim Puckett was in attendance, and was a speaker. On the same day, a speaker from the Sino EPA in Hong Kong spoke to the group in English. He spoke about "green wastes", a listing China was going to propose to improve imports. He also spoke about China's intention to stop "trans-boundary" movement of containers which change ships in Hong Kong's port.
[The latter was quite disturbing to me... China may be the competent authority for what is defined as "waste" and "hazardous" within China (though it may not, the courts in Hong Kong would allow a suit to bring Department of Commerce in to challenge a "non-commodity" or "non-property" ruling). But for China to say it can declare a commodity to be "waste" when it is shipped from Party A to Party B, and enters the port of China (Party C) in transit, is an alarming precedent to announce.]
I raised my hand from the audience and was called on to ask a question. It was a question I had asked Chinese EPA officials in Hong Kong a few years earlier. I had been told that China identifies ANYTHING "second hand" to be waste. I asked whether, if I brought a one-week old fully functional tested working laptop with me to China, and decided to give it as a gift to a Chinese host, whether my prior use of the laptop rendered it "waste" and "hazardous waste". The Chinese Official (I can find his name) said I was right, it's an environmental crime. That the laptop was second hand, and contained circuit boards, and therefore it would be an illegal transboundary movement in China.
Second-hand is defined as "waste" in China. So a Chinese "discovery" of second hand equipment may sound a lot worse than it is. You just don't know until you get the contents of the container.
BAN's leader Jim Puckett was at this meeting, and he and I have had this discussion in person, and he knows full well that China would identify any tested working equipment as "hazardous waste". According to his website, he's been an expert in these laws for over a decade. By contrast, Basel Convention (Annex IX B1110) considers even non-working second-hand equipment to be potentially commodity and not waste (if sent for repair), and the USA considers the intent of the buyer and shipper in the determination. BAN has its own definition involving removal of parts prior to repair (no one in the world does this, to my knowledge). The point is that the "determination" is used by BAN in its press release to confuse journalists, just as they confused CBS, PBS, and Terry Gross about the "80%" of the world which generates half of all e-waste on their own.
BAN is an expert on these issues of determination and trade barriers, and yet claims they relied on the inspection of a Chinese authority in making a public announcement about Intercon. BAN cannot claim not to know that the definition of the Chinese authority included non-hazardous and even working items. (In fact there is a WTO lawsuit over China's use of environmental labels as a non-tariff trade barrier). By telling China that Intercon had shipped a container, and that Intercon was a trader in second-hand electronics, BAN had basically set in motion a test which Intercon would fail no matter what the contents of Intercon's containers. If BAN didn't know the contents to start with, it was a reckless act to sick the Chinese enforcer on the container in the first place. And the signs are that BAN couldn't wait to announce what they were going to announce... they launched at Intercon the same way as they launched at Asian and African businesspeople in the past.
China's interpretation of second-hand makes it a watchdog that bites everybody, criminals, children, and mailmen. I know that, and BAN knows that. But the American public is going to believe that there was a criminal involved, based on BAN's "information" that 80% of all USA second hand goods are wastes burned in primitive conditions.
Did BAN defame Intercon? We know for a fact that BAN is in the defamation business. It's what they do. They defame people every day... this was Strike 3. Perhaps this time they defamed the wrong guy.
