On 9th November, Palestinian Solidarity Groups targeted Camden footwear stores to highlight that Caterpillar (bootmakers) also sell tanks and armoured vehicles to the Israeli army for use in suppressing Palestinian people in their own land. Promises made (and advertised on Indymedia) have been broken by the owner of Camden Bootstore.e
on 9th November, the 'rhythms of resistance' samba band, joined by players from Barking and Sheffield samba bands took part in a solidarity action in Camden. the full report of the day was on indymedia at 
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/280130.html
the day seemed to have been a real success, because of the promises from the owner of two shoe shops in Camden, a Mr. Shahid Butt who owns Future Designs Leather Company as well as Camden Bootstore and another shop a few doors down (see original post fo r full details).
Mr. Butt claimed that he had been unaware of Caterpillar's connections with weapons of death and repression in Palestine and now that he knew he would be returning all his current Caterpillar stock with a letter explaining why. He promis ed activists that he would give them a copy of the letter too.
Because of these apparently genuine promises, his business was left unaffected by the afternoon's protests, and he received much positive publicity on indymedia and other sites.
Unfortunatel y, the letter didn't materialise and efforts to contact Mr. Butt and get any comment or response from him proved difficult. At first he cited personal reasons, but then he started changing his promise and saying that he was just going to get rid of current stock (at a massive discount to get rid of them) and then not buy more. He also became abusive and started claiming that protestors were all on social security and what did they know of business.
The shops in question still stock Caterpillar goods and are selling them at the same price as they were. It appears Mr. Butt might have been making promises in order to move on the protests outside his shop, and this rather cynical behaviour is a big disappointment after the apparent success of the afternoon.
If you would like to contact Mr. Butt he is normally available at work after about 5.30 on 020 7729 8290, or you can send him an email on
futurelc@aol.co.uk.
If you would like to support Palestinian Solidarity actions, this Sunday 13th, from 1pm there will be protests at the Islington Business Centre (Angel) outside the 'Israel Expo' which is a day long fest offering holidays, property and business investments in Israel and the Occupied Territories..
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/280130.html the day seemed to have been a real success, because of the promises from the owner of two shoe shops in Camden, a Mr. Shahid Butt who owns Future Designs Leather Company as well as Camden Bootstore and another shop a few doors down (see original post fo r full details).
Mr. Butt claimed that he had been unaware of Caterpillar's connections with weapons of death and repression in Palestine and now that he knew he would be returning all his current Caterpillar stock with a letter explaining why. He promis ed activists that he would give them a copy of the letter too.
Because of these apparently genuine promises, his business was left unaffected by the afternoon's protests, and he received much positive publicity on indymedia and other sites.
Unfortunatel y, the letter didn't materialise and efforts to contact Mr. Butt and get any comment or response from him proved difficult. At first he cited personal reasons, but then he started changing his promise and saying that he was just going to get rid of current stock (at a massive discount to get rid of them) and then not buy more. He also became abusive and started claiming that protestors were all on social security and what did they know of business.
The shops in question still stock Caterpillar goods and are selling them at the same price as they were. It appears Mr. Butt might have been making promises in order to move on the protests outside his shop, and this rather cynical behaviour is a big disappointment after the apparent success of the afternoon.
If you would like to contact Mr. Butt he is normally available at work after about 5.30 on 020 7729 8290, or you can send him an email on
futurelc@aol.co.uk. If you would like to support Palestinian Solidarity actions, this Sunday 13th, from 1pm there will be protests at the Islington Business Centre (Angel) outside the 'Israel Expo' which is a day long fest offering holidays, property and business investments in Israel and the Occupied Territories..
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
Are you SURE????
14.12.2003 19:57
MAYBE "Caterpiller" (the heavy equipment coroporation) DOES own a "bootmaking" division but somehow I kind of doubt it. You better check on this. "Catepiller" is a TRADEMARK. These don't work like patents or copyright. The first user of a "trademark" doesn't have totally EXCLUSIVE use of the name, just protection against potentially confusing use by some other business.
That "potentially" is interpeted pretty broadly sometimes but not infinitely so. A bootmaker might be reasonably safe using that name without being threatened with an "trademark infringement" case by a tractor maker. Those choosing business names need to be careful about the likelihood of a prior owner complaining. I don't believe that "Caterpiller" (the equipment maker) markets any lines of clothing and probably has no intention of ever doing so >
It is IMPORTANT to be very sure about things like this.
Mike
e-mail:
stepbystepfarm mtdata.com
they license it out
14.12.2003 22:32
If you had spent an entire 10 seconds on the cat site, you would realise that CAT are linked with their shoes. They license it out (the name 'Caterpillar' is not a trademark. The Logo is, therefore the shoe manufacturers must pay the company money in order to stick the logo on it.
Please research things before making comments to try and discredit an argument.
Thanks
Fredrico
fredrico
e-mail:
musteatvegan@yahoo.co.uk
You mean it's a TERTIARY boycott action?
15.12.2003 02:22
Sorry, I had assumed (as the story posted indicated) that this was an action taken against a store stocking products that were in some way connected to Caterpiller (tractor company) --- which is presumably the primary boycott target and that the boot company was part of "Caterpiller" tractor.
Thanks fot your correction. It hadn't occurred to me that what was meant.
Let's see if I have this straight.
The boycott is against Caterpiller (trator)
The bootmaker Caterpiller has a business transaction with Caterpiller tractor (buys a "product" from them) and so is not cooperating with the boycott (of Caterpiller tractor). So you are boycotting them too -- that's a secondary boycott.
And this store is stocking Caterpiller (bootmaker) products and so is refusing to cooperate with your secondary boycott and you want to act against them --- that's a tertiary boycott.
Interesting. Might I ask how far you folks take boycotts? My mistake is not all that unreasonable since over this side of the pond, while secondary boycotts DO take place (and many people feel they are morally justifiable) actually only primary boycotts are "legal".
Please recheck with the store which you feel reneged on the agreement to cooperate. Find out whether they had been (initally) been led to believe that Caterpiller (bootmaker) was connected with Caterpiller (tractor). They might well have thought they were agreeing to go along with a (primary) boycott and then learned that it was a secondary boycott (no connection except that Caterpiller bootmaker by licensing the logo (doing business with) isn't boycotting Caterpiller tractor --- or do you think I am still getting this wrong?).
Mike
e-mail:
stepbystepfarm mtdata,com
It's like this
20.12.2003 00:49
In Cat's case, the company own's the brand name etc... and franchises it out to producers (a lot like coca-cola does with it's drinks). Therefore, the producer and the brand owner, legally are one and the same entity for boycott purposes. Following through, the store that stocks the products is acting as a sales agent for the company. If the boycott of the store was not 'legal' it would make it impossible to 'legally' boycott anything as no company actually (multi-nationals anyway) make and sell things under their 'corporate' company. Instead they set up lots of little companies to do it for them (eg Asahi Glass Company of Japan (see
So in your idea, the boycott is a 'tertiary' boycott when in fact it is a primary boycott as that is the only way of stopping the company.
Also, what are you meaning by 'legal boycott'? A boycott is legal whatever level it is at. Anyone can make a decision not to buy something. ie Vegan's don't eat/use animal products. I'm sure that they are many many levels down the boycott ladder. There is no law applicable to boycotts.
fredrico
e-mail:
musteatvegan@yahoo.co.uk
Caterpillar Boots - a reply
24.08.2004 15:41
A boycot of the kind mentioned is misinformed at best. At least get your facts right before upsetting a law-abiding businessman of his trade.
SJB
they still have to have a license
27.06.2005 14:41
As a licensed company creating CAT footware, they have a license agreement with CAT the equipment maker. This means they have dealings with them - no denying that. CAT will make money from every sale of footware with their logo on it - else why are they licensing their brand name (even if it is only brand awareness, this will still make them money).
So this is still a viable and useful campaign.
fredrico
e-mail:
musteatvegan@yahoo.co.uk