Power plays a large part in law, financial power is needed to get a lawyer and go on with a court case and the multinational corporation coming into the small town to take over mining duties has a drastically larger pocket in comparison to the small town. Another power the multinational corporation holds at larger account in comparison to the small town is authoritative power. The larger mining company used this power to alter the results about the hazardous water being dispelled into the town, harming the residents and wild life of the town. Another way the large corporation used this power is through the provincial government, the provincial government exempted the company from many environmental standards. Corporations, towns, and …show more content…
Bringing up the issues with the local representatives is using the method of before the law because it works with the system of government and allows the representatives and more powerful people to deal with the issues faced by the people in the town. Assuming the first step fails to account for change, which is expected, it is important to take action as a community member and for this it is essential to use the law to get justice for the town and their people. To change gears from before the law to a with the law aspect, it is important to get a lawyer to fully get access to all the information needed and have someone who fully understands the law. For this it is essential to gain power through getting as much of the community involved as possible to file class-action against both the provincial government and the company. A crucial step is to gain evidence and the first piece of evidence is the real reports of the water to indicate the hard metals within the water. The different results will showcase that the reports presented by the large mining company have been doctored. More evidence only makes a case stronger and for this the town people should also keep record of the loss of wild life to show case the negative impact of the company’s shortcuts.
Furthermore, staying within the “with the law” aspect, it is vital to know what laws are being broken by the government and the company and what they are being held accountable for. One thing the
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
While they acknowledge that they are dumping a chemical into the tap water, they lie to the residents of Hinkley by telling them that it is a different type of chromium, chromium III, that isn’t dangerous. Lying is the simplest and biggest ethical mistake there can be as it is always intentional and causes harm to the other side who believes what is being said. Not only does PG&E lie about the type of chromium being dumped, they also try to cover it up through various methods. First, they have paid the medical expenses of people in the town as a way to show that they are doing their part to help, when really this is a small expense compared with what the ethical dumping of chromium or an alternate form of chemical would consist of. Secondly, they are bribing the people with large amounts of money to buy their homes and the land they are on, which holds the dangerous chromium. Once again this is a cheaper way to hide their issue compared to the cost of having to fix their practice or losing their company. They even try to give out large amounts of money to stop the case when they know that one is being started against them. The people of Hinkley have trouble seeing past this, because of the good that PG&E does for the community overall with jobs and their economy, etc. This is an issue with Utilitarianism ethics. It is hard to see past what is good overall for the most majority of people and realize the negative effects this overall good is having for some people.
For various reasons, the Canadian government continues harmful practices in lieu of the concerns from Aboriginal peoples. Returning to McGregor (2004), the power imbalance that exists between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people is apparent (p. 398), especially regarding oil extraction. So long as “western” theories of production and management are followed, opposing ideals will not dominate. There are large profits to be made in the Athabasca region from resource extraction. As a result, the Canadian government reduces the region to a marketable commodity (Latulippe,
An attempt to save money by changing water sources by an indifferent government caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, negative health effects, and a total loss in faith in the government of Michigan. Although measures have been taken to mitigate these problems, their effects have already marred the city of Flint and its
Here the authors address an important solution; allow residents to hire their own experts from the community who are well versed in delivering the proponents message to the residents in a manner that does not exclude anyone from the process. The landfill began operating in 2006, as the proponents deemed there was not any substantive opposition to the project through official Environmental Impact Assessment (Deacon & Baxter, 2013). Deacon and Baxter in this case set out to understand the role and relation between power and participation as it relates to procedural environmental justice in order to challenge understanding of environmental justice and cease production and reproduction of environmental injustice. The residents protested as they felt they were being sacrificed for economic growth, “the landfill has become a symbol of the slow decline of the community of Lincolnville” (Race and Waste in Nova Scotia, 2006). They call this environmental racism, which is the racial discrimination in the enforcement of environmental rules and regulations, targeting minority communities for the siting of polluting industries or the exclusion of people of color from public and private boards, commissions and regulatory bodies (Race and Waste in Nova Scotia,
The contamination began in April 2014 after the source of the town’s water supply was switched from Lake Huron to the Flint river in order to reduce governmental costs. This was done despite the fact that the Flint River had a strong history of pollution. Among this pollution included car parts, a dead body, and high levels of chemicals. (Semules par 5). Once the pipes were switched there were several complaints of the water having a foul smell and metallic taste (Foley par 4). In the beggining the government denied that anything was wrong despite the fact that lab examinations of the water proved otherwise. Two years after the Flint water crisis gained media attention, the Senate passed a bill that would provide Flint residents with water, but this is
Large businesses often can maneuver their way through the system very well due to the extremely large amounts of money then have. These companies have been known to use harmful production techniques that destroy our national resources and in some cases our own citizens and are not legally implicated. In the case of “Madison v. Ducktown, Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co.”, a large mining company had been damaging the air quality, destroy the local environment, and made several properties unlivable through the system of their mining.
Moving forward into the movie and the case, looking at the big picture, there are several leads and connections that point towards “Beatrice Foods” and “W.R. Grace” to blame. Throughout the entirety of the case, it seemed that it was becoming obvious that they were the companies that caused the toxin contamination in the town’s water supply.
The attempt to link the harm to the behavior of the defendant produced its share of successes and failures for the Schlichtmann team. Not only did the plaintiffs have to prove that the corporations contaminated the water, but they also had to show that the contamination caused the leukemia and the other health problems. To do this they enlisted the help and expertise of numerous doctors and specialists. Naturally the defending side recruited their own set of experts. As in any case, each side is going to have an expert who will refute the testimony of the other side’s expert. This is a normal part of arguing a case, but can cause confusion and complication on the part of the jurors.
The town of Woburn, MA was stricken with an epidemic of different types of leukemia, including acute lymphoblastic leukemia, which affected 8 families. The mere notion that such rare cases occurred within a half mile radius of each other was a call for attention. It is the plaintiff 's claim that these cases were the result of a toxic contamination of the town’s water supply by the defendant 's unintentional, improper disposal of the following chemical waste products: Trichloroethylene (TCE) and Perchlorethylene (PCE). The plaintiff accuses the defendant of the following charges: negligence of chemical procedures including, but not limited to, illegal dumping of TCE, as well as PCE, and wrongful death, resulting from a depraved indifference to human life. Given the pain and suffering the victims and their families have undergone due to the defendant’s gross negligence, the plaintiff asks for compensation for and acknowledgement of wrongdoing on the defendant 's part. The plaintiff also calls for an injunction; in order for the defendant to resume further factory work, the company must propose, and be approved of, new procedures that strictly follow the enforced regulations that ensure the safe disposal of all chemical waste.
A Civil Action is based upon a true story that Jonathan Harr, a former staff writer of New England Monthly describes a case that in the legal system that is fascinating and compelling. The story of a impracticable quest by an idealistic young personal-Injury lawyer, whose aim was to prove that two conglomerates, Beatrice Foods and W.R Grace, allegedly polluted the water in Woburn ,Mass. a Boston suburb, with carcinogens. Jan had hoped that a victory would send a message to the boardrooms to America and felt that the culture of Leukemia in Woburn guaranteed his success. He never realized that he would be comforted with problems in the justice system.
For example, an individual from the community specified that the company corrupted/bought the local doctor and priest so that they moved to a different location. This forced the locals to travel whenever they needed medical assistance or whenever they needed a burial service. This initiative has been held back by an association consisting of local residents for more than a decade by using volunteer lawyers (Jamasmie, 2013). If the mining project will commence, the economics that dictate to the politics will seal the road to a sustainable disaster in an "era of sustainable development” (Zaharia, 2010, p.1).
Rule of law in simplest terms means law rules, that is, law is supreme. The term “Rule of law‟ is derived from the French phrase “la principle de legalite” (the principle of legality) which means a government on principle of law and not of men. Rule of Law is a viable and dynamic concept and, like many other concepts, is not capable of any exact definition. It is used in contradistinction to rule of man. Sir Edward Coke, the Chief Justice in King James I‟s reign is said to be the originator of this principle. However, concrete shape was given to it by Professor A.V. Dicey, for the first time in his book “Law of the Constitution” (1885) in the form of three principles.
The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.
The legal Power is qualified for all natives Cases, in Law and Value, emerging under this Constitution, the Laws of the Unified States, and Arrangements made, or which should be made, under their Power; to all Cases influencing Represetatives, other open Pastors and Representatives; to all Instances of chief of naval operations' office and oceanic Purview; to Debates to which the Assembled States might be a Gathering; to Discussions between at least two States; between a State and Residents of another State; between Nationals of various States; between Nationals of a similar State guaranteeing Terrains under Gifts of various States, and between a State, or the Subjects thereof, and outside States, Natives or Subjects."The locale of the