10.9 Communication strategies of the parties

During the conflict, each of the Indian Organisations, CCC/ICN, G-Star and FFI/JKPL communicated in their own manner, using different vocabulary based on personal perceptions, which led to misunderstandings of actual situations. In this section several issues that may have aggravated the conflict will be presented.

The parties, CCC/ICN and the Indian Organisations, on the one hand, and G-Star and FFI/JKPL on the other, kept strictly to their own perception of the factual labour conditions at FFI/JKPL, while denying arguments made or materials released by the other party. This may have led to confusion in the outside world. For instance, during the legal proceedings against the Indian Organisations, CCC/ICN always claimed that the FFI/JKPL production units could - by definition - not meet G-Star's code of conduct, let alone the SA 8000 standard, since the involvement of local stakeholders was impossible because of the restraining order. Moreover, CCC/ICN claimed that SGS was a commercial auditing firm and therefore not independent, that SGS was part of the controversy, and that the Delhi-based NGO ASK was not suitable for executing an audit amongst Bangalore employees, as it 'did not understand local culture and custom', as did GATWU. In this way, CCC/ICN downplayed in advance any positive outcome of audits or checks by organisations or authorities other than those affiliated with CCC/ICN. G-Star, on the other hand, denied the allegations of the Indian Organisations, since they could not substantiate these and the SGS/ASK audits did not confirm them, and informed the public that the FFI/JKPL labour conditions were up-to-standard. G-Star pointed to the professional level of the SGS and ASK personnel.

When the Bangalore Civil Court issued the restraining order against the Indian Organisations prohibiting them from disseminating false information, CCC/ ICN consistently referred to this as a 'gagging order', which allegedly prohibited them from discussing the FFI/JKPL situation in its entirety with their Bangalore affiliates. CCC/ICN in its press statements and on its website even referred to G-Star as 'Gag-Star and displayed pictures online of activists forming the actual letters.1 FFI/JKPL and G-Star, however, always stated that the restraining order only prohibited the individual activists from Bangalore from disseminating information which the Bangalore Civil Court considered prima facie untrue statements, such as the aforementioned interview on Dutch radio. The activists were thus not restrained from speaking out about FFI/JKPL in general. Another aspect is the continuation of the restraining order; if the Bangalore organisations would have presented evidence to the Court to substantiate the allegations against FFI/JKPL, the Court would have immediately withdrawn the restraining order. However, although the organisations sometimes appeared in Court and filed responses, they did not provide a iota of material to substantiate their claim. Hence, the Court prolonged the restraining order on several occasions. In the meantime, CCC/ICN publicly expressed its anger over the 'threats to freedom of speech' and FFI/JKPL's 'policy of threatening its criticasters and tried to force FFI/JKPL to withdraw the legal proceedings by intensifying the public campaigns and by putting pressure on FFI/JKPL s customers. CCC/ICN and the Indian Organisations preferred to submit their case to the 'court of public opinion' rather than substantiating their allegations against FFI/JKPL in Court.

Before the conflict between CCC/ICN and FFI/JKPL evolved into large-scale warfare, FFI/JKPL supplied multiple buyers, including G-Star. Interestingly enough, CCC/ICN s campaign was aimed solely at G-Star, whereas there were other apparel brands, even Dutch-based brands, that were originally sourcing from FFI/JKPL in the same period. One of those brands was the Amsterdam-based company Mexx which became an FWF member in November 2006 after CCC/ICN's press release on the 'gagging order'. In an article in the Dutch newspaper Trouw, the FWF director explained how FWF and Mexx had jointly engaged in dialogue with the FFI/JKPL management to discuss the issues alleged by FWF's Bangalore partnering organisations.2 He stressed the need for ' silent diplomacy , a view quite opposite to FWF s initiating member organisation CCC.3

When the representatives of CCC/ICN and the Internet Service Providers were charged with criminal defamation and - upon their non-appearance in Court -the Magistrate Court subsequently issued arrest warrants, CCC/ICN publicly claimed that the Indian Court qualified them as 'international terrorists' and that this lawsuit was a full-frontal attack against 'international human rights activists. FFI/JKPL, on the other hand, had initiated the court case as an attempt to stop CCC/ICN from continuing their (internet) campaigns in which they spread information that the Court had found to be prima facie untrue. FFI/

JKPL was rapidly losing business, G-Star was also publicly considering leaving FFI/JKPL, and there was a threat of bankruptcy. The Magistrate Court had issued non-bailable arrest warrants, because the criminal procedure in India requires that the defendants appear in Court. The Court can exempt the appearance of the accused until the trial commences.

After the issuance of the restraining order by the Bangalore Civil Court and the criminal charges by the Magistrate Court, CCC/ICN claimed that these Court actions had been ' purchased by FFI/JKPL. CCC/ICN claimed the same about the positive report of the Labour Department. Basically, any (positive) information on FFI/JKPL that did not come from sources affiliated to the Indian Organisations was regarded as unreliable or suspicious by CCC/ICN.

Concluding, due to the intemperate and strong terminology used by CCC/ICN, and the type of legal claims filed against them by FFI/JKPL, the conflict became interesting for the international media and was easily picked up by politicians (supra section 10.3). Both sides were in the process of igniting their differences of opinion. De-escalation was not part of their vocabulary.