RE:RE:RE:RE:do we'll revisit .50$ one day...?Glad you found the 2nd piece useful. It ended up being quite long because of the number of conflicts and contradictions I was able to identify. Congratulations if you made it all the way through.
As for your questions on the court case and the petition.
SSI wasn't prepared for the September 9th hearing and requested an extension. The next hearing date is Sept 16th. Don't read too much into this delay - I think it's fairly common occurrence.
I didn't spend any time reviewing the petition or those that signed it. There's a few reasons for this.
The biggest problem with the petition is that the signatories can literally be anyone and anything; no review or validation on the people signing. It's well-known that people creating these petitions can pay a third party company to have real people sign the petition or use an automated program to do so automatically. A Google search is all that's needed. These types of petitions are basically useless and their only benefit is to create perceived social opposition - this is exactly what SSI is trying to do.
I suspect SSI used a 3rd party to inflate the number of signatures on their petition. If you recall, the number of "people" that signed the petition got to like 130,000 in two weeks but that number hasn't really changed in the following 4-5 month period. This pattern is typical of an automated service that is no longer active. In addition to the suspicious signature acquisition patterns, I give this petition a 0% chance of being a genuine reflection of community sentiment for the following reasons:
1. All the SSI photographs\videos show the same group of people
2. SSI admits that local authorities and government do not support them
3. SSI admits the larger protests were done by "non-resident" activists
4. Multiple failed fundraising campaigns (all raised less than 1% of their goal)
5. Social media research shows virtually all leadership and members live outside the affected areas of the CoW and almost all aren't resident to Sangihe. Elbi is the only exception.
6. The lack of continued momentum on their petition and PT TMS's success in the land acquisition -
However, the most important reason why I didn't consider the petition in my research is the description for the petition is entirely false, misleading, grossly exaggerated or totally irrelevant. There is nothing in the petition description that I can say is an honest reflection of the work currently underway on the Island so why would I spend time evaluating the "people" who signed it. The signatories are opposing an alternative reality!
That's the crazy thing about SSI - everything they say is misleading or intentionally inflammatory. SSI is not a legitimate environmental conservation and protection group. How can SSI claim to be fighting for environmental protection when their leadership publicly posts words of support for illegal miners?
These are the main points of their petition and why it's wrong or misleading.
1. The "small island law" - Wrong and misleading. The CoW was granted before this law was appeased and is not retroactive.
2. They are mining half of the island (42,000 ha) - Totally Wrong. This is their favourite claim because it's so inflammatory. They are desperate to convince people that TMS is going to be mining in sensitive ecological zones rather than the small areas that are already being exploited by illegal miners. Also, remember that Elbi of SSI is suing for 6.1 million CAD in non-existent damages and... Total Damages = Area * Land Price. The greater the area of land (and the higher the value of land... I've already posted how they are trying to increase the price) the more Elbi, Juli and SSI group personally benefit.
3. High-risk area prone to natural disasters - Irrelevant. High-risk area prone to natural disasters refers to all of Indonesia! If this truly is a concern for SSI, perhaps they should start a petition to evacuate all Indonesians.
4. Collection of references to international conferences, UN declarations, etc - Irrelevant. This is SSI just grandstanding and prevents a rational discussion on how to balance economic and environmental protection.
5. No community involvement, permits appeared out of nowhere, etc. - Total lie and attempting to imply corruption. SSI was presented with video and photographic evidence of community meetings, and a long history of obtained approvals and commitments of required environmental, space permits and techno-environmental plans dating back to at least 2014,