Wto Ethics

The WTO has a set of rules and practices that are profoundly anti-environmental and diminish or abolish any honest effort to protect environmental, social and moral values. The first instance of this is scene, the EU banned the sale of furs from any animal that was caught in a steel jawtype trap. This is a trap that is spring loaded and has sharp claws that slam shut on the animal who unknowingly steps in the trap. These traps crush and hold the animal's leg, holding the animal until the trapper returns, which may be several days. Nocturnal animals are terrified at being held out in daylight, they may die of thirst or from their injuries and have been known to bite off their own legs to get free. The European union decided to ban the import of pelts only from countries that had not banned the steel-jaw legholdtrap since it is impossible to tell after the fur has been stripped whether or not the animal it came from was caught in one of these traps. The United States, Canada, and Russia all threatened to file a complaint forcing the EU to withdraw this ban, allowing this unethical hurtful practice to continue. The WTO defends itself by claiming that under its rules, environmental protection measures are prohibited only if those measures treat foreign producers more harshly than domestic producers. The claim by opposing countries claim that when the importing country bans products made in ways harmful to the environment or to animals or to workers, they are trying to exercise extraterritorial powers over the exporting country. This is very misleading. Now let’s take a look at another product which is equally as objectionable as slaughtering and torturing innocent animals. If this principle of preventing the sale of morally objectionable products within one's own borders is rejected, then how could a country be justified in prohibiting the import of films that display acts of real, non-consensual sexual violence, or even pornography in general? No one regards...