View allAll Photos Tagged exploit
Entre-vue sur « L'art de passer de la vision stratégique à l'expérience-client: l'histoire de la transformation de McDonald's du Canada »
Le jeudi 22 novembre 2012 à 7 h 15
Conférencier :
Jacques Mignault, Chef de l'Exploitation des Restaurants McDonald du Canada Limitée
Professeur invité :
Pierre Balloffet, Professeur agrégé du Service de l'enseignement du marketing à HEC Montréal
Conférence animée par Marie-Claude Morin, Journaliste, Les Affaires
Club Saint-James, 1145 avenue Union à Montréal
France, Paris, 2017-12-08. For this edition of the Telethon (huge French event to help disabled people), tightrope walkers have installed and crossed a highline between the Eiffel Tower and Trocadero. The event is broadcast live on France 2 and TV5 Monde. It was a unique feat and a world record because the strap was almost 700 meters long. It was the first time in the world that such a long line was installed and crossed in a city. Last June, they broke the world record of highline at Navacelles, crossing a line of 1662 meters long, barefoot. Photograph by Fred MARIE / Collectif DR.
France, Paris, 2017-12-08. A l occasion du Telethon, des funambules ont installe et traverse une highline entre la Tour Eiffel et le Trocadero. L evenement est retransmis en direct sur France 2 et TV5 Monde. Il etait question d’un exploit unique et d un record du monde car la sangle mesurerait quasiment 700 metres. C etait la première fois au monde qu’une ligne aussi longue était installee et traversée dans une ville. En juin dernier, ils ont battu le record du monde de highline a Navacelles, en traversant une ligne de 1662 metres de long, pieds nus. Photographie de Fred MARIE / Collectif DR.
Exploitant : Transdev TVO
Réseau : R'Bus (Argenteuil)
Ligne : 18
Lieu : Gare d'Argenteuil (Argenteuil, F-95)
Lien TC Infos : tc-infos.fr/id/35641
A march against the exploitation of and racism toward international students in Australia that the governments (both state and federal) continue to allow to exist. International and Australian students from NSW universities (such as Newcastle, UTS, Macquarie, UNSW and Sydney University) rallied together, marching from Sydney University to UTS and on to NSW Parliament House, asking for the government to intervene and change legislation that allows international students to be taken advantage of.
Some basic rights like abolishing the 20-hour work week limit and providing student travel concessions to international students were demanded in chants and songs. At a deeper level though, the protesters are demanding an end to the systematic racism and exploitation of international students, who are increasingly treated more as a means to profit than as students to educate.
The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) honors its 2022 “Heroes” who have gone above and beyond to help protect the nation’s most valuable resource – children. The event was hosted at the Arlington, VA headquarters of Lockheed Martin. Reginald Saunders /NCMEC
Exploiting a sad specimen in Malcolm X Park, Washington DC 15oct05. He didn't feel a thing. From the photoblog.
“End the Slavery”: Sakuma Brothers Farms Workers of Familias Unidas por la Justicia March for a Labor Contract and Against Exploitation and Abuse: Burlington, Washington, Saturday, July 11, 2015.
Port-au-Prince, August 01st, 2019. Community engagement campaign in the streets of the Haitian capital Port-au-Pince against Sexual Exploitation and Abuses (SEA). This outreach project lead by the Mima Gentile, UNPOL Conduct Discipline Team (CDT) officer and conducted by 21 UNPOL and FPU officers aimed to sensitize the population about the Zero Tolerance policy of the UN and transmit the information about the existing hotline to report cases of SEA.
Photo Leonora Baumann UN/MINUJUSTH
We know that bags are made of water proof material so we use that to our advantage and cover bike seats in the rain.
SHARE Lab
Exploitation Forensics
Aksioma Project Space
Komenskega 18, Ljubljana
29 November - 15 December 2017
Production: Aksioma - Institute for Contemporary Art, Ljubljana, 2017
Photo: Jure Goršič / Aksioma
Centre culturel Pyepoudre, Port-au-Prince 06 avril 2019. Dernière représentation d’une tournée théâtrale contre les violences sexuelles commises par des membres du personnel civil ou en uniforme des Nations Unies. Organisée par la MINUJUSTH et mise en œuvre par l’association culturelle Tamise, ce spectacle interactif de théâtre forum vise à prévenir les cas d’exploitation et d’abus sexuels et à faire connaître les différents mécanismes de plainte qui existent au sein des Nations Unies.
Financé par le Royaume Uni et mis en œuvre par quatre opérations de maintien de la paix en Centre-Afrique, au République démocratique du Congo, au Sud Soudan et en Haïti, ce projet vise à aider les communautés à comprendre et identifier ce qui constitue l’exploitation et les abus sexuels, à pouvoir signaler une allégation tout en obtenant les informations vitales sur l’assistance disponible pour les victimes et le suivi des cas. Il entre dans le cadre de la politique de Tolérance Zéro des Nations Unies contre les personnes responsables de ces actes.
Photo : Leonora Baumann / MINUJUSTH
“End the Slavery”: Sakuma Brothers Farms Workers of Familias Unidas por la Justicia March for a Labor Contract and Against Exploitation and Abuse: Burlington, Washington, Saturday, July 11, 2015.
Within the era of scientifically accepted 'we are the cause of climate change and global warming' and its inevitable consequences, can we afford new and further exploitation of fossil fuels?
"The world possesses the tools and technology needed to reduce carbon emissions, build a more sustainable economy and end our reliance on fossil fuels."
www.huffingtonpost.com/jimmy-carter/climate-change-who-wi...
Currently Wales and the UK are awash with a tied of new fossil fuel exploitation, shale gas, coal bed methane and new open cast coal mines. So often cited as bridging too renewables, or replacing imported fossil fuels.
13 April 2014: IPCC PRESS RELEASE
Greenhouse gas emissions accelerate despite reduction efforts.
"Scenarios show that to have a likely chance of limiting the increase in global mean temperature to two degrees Celsius, means lowering global greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 70 percent compared with 2010 by mid-century, and to near-zero by the end of this century. Ambitious mitigation may even require removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere."
ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/pr_wg3/20140413_pr_pc_wg3_en.pdf
All of this new fossil fuel development will bridge to renewables, pay for it, not distract from it? Does our governance seem like they are leading the way to mitigating climate change, are we a shinning example to others countries to follow suit?
Doesn't a global bullet need to be bitten within a short time scale, or is the bullet simply being deflecting for future generations to deal with, and its real impact?
Future Generations Bill: Better Choices for a Better Future
wales.gov.uk/topics/sustainabledevelopment/future-generat...
Join the National Conversation on 'The Wales We Want' thewaleswewant.co.uk
@valleysalliance
Promoting the real cost of open cast mining on local people and communities. Join our campaign to stop plans for an open cast mine near Rhymney #stopnantllesg
Nant Llesg, Rhymney, Wales · www.greenvalleysalliance.co.uk
Protesters say no to Nant Llesg open cast mine in Rhymney Valley
www.caerphillyobserver.co.uk/news/943739/protesters-say-n...
Campaigners fighting to stop death of the valleys turn out for mocked-up 'funeral'
www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/campaigners-fightin...
Protest against Nant Llesg opencast mine plans
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-27123016
‘Death of the Valley’ Protest Against Nant Llesg Open Cast Mine Proposals
www.welshicons.org.uk/news/death-of-the-valley-protest-ag...
Photography: Twitter @nspugh twitter.com/nspugh
Nepalese peacekeepers in United Nations Mission in South Sudan receive an important card for prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse on 26th March 2019.
The card contains clear instructions to peacekeepers to honour the UN values; it warns of zero tolerance for sexual exploitation and abuse, each peacekeeper must now take the card everywhere they go. It’s a constant reminder of the UN policy: There’s No excuse and no second chance for any sexual misconduct.
UN Photo: Isaac Billy
Exploiting a cleft in a trees root system, a celandine sends its flowers skyward in search of spring pollinators.
ALEXANDRIA, VA: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children: Volunteers from the US Marshalls and NCMEC staff package HOPE bags of essentials for survivors upon recovery. ( NCMEC 2023 Claire Edkins)
TYPE: "Archer Class"Patrol Vessel
IMO: -
GT: -
BUILD YEAR: 1988
FLAG: UK
NOTES:
Departing Portsmouth Dockyard
23rd May 2019
ASK Evaluation domain has conducted the end term evaluation of the Project MUKTI: “Combatting Trafficking of Children for Commercial Sexual Exploitation” in the states of West Bengal (Darjeeling), Manipur, Assam and Goa in India.
The project is implemented by Anyay Rahit Zindagi (ARZ), FXB India Suraksha, Global Organization for Life Development (GOLD) and Mankind in Action for Rural Growth (MARG), and supported by ECPAT Luxembourg / EL (End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes). The project is working to prevent sexual abuse & human trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation plus also rescue, rehabilitate, repatriate & reintegrate the survivors of human trafficking and child sexual abuses.
The Evaluation has been done to assess the extent to which project objectives were achieved through the work of the implementing partners of ECPAT and looked into the impact, effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, sustainability, good practices, challenges encountered & lesson learned. As part of this evaluation, ASK team interacted with a wide range of stakeholders including the partner organizations & project team members, survivors of sexual abuse & trafficking in-person and their parents / family members / caretakers, anti-trafficking clubs, vigilance groups / committees, legal cells, school children & teachers, government stakeholders (like anti-human trafficking units, social welfare department, women & child welfare department, Police & Law Enforcement Officials, Police, Protection Homes representatives), tourism industry workers, religious leaders, media representatives, staffs of protection / rehabilitation homes / centers, vocational training centers etc.
[Photo: ASK]
Port-au-Prince, August 01st, 2019. Community engagement campaign in the streets of the Haitian capital Port-au-Pince against Sexual Exploitation and Abuses (SEA). This outreach project lead by the Mima Gentile, UNPOL Conduct Discipline Team (CDT) officer and conducted by 21 UNPOL and FPU officers aimed to sensitize the population about the Zero Tolerance policy of the UN and transmit the information about the existing hotline to report cases of SEA.
Photo Leonora Baumann UN/MINUJUSTH
Port-au-Prince, August 01st, 2019. Community engagement campaign in the streets of the Haitian capital Port-au-Pince against Sexual Exploitation and Abuses (SEA). This outreach project lead by the Mima Gentile, UNPOL Conduct Discipline Team (CDT) officer and conducted by 21 UNPOL and FPU officers aimed to sensitize the population about the Zero Tolerance policy of the UN and transmit the information about the existing hotline to report cases of SEA.
Photo Leonora Baumann UN/MINUJUSTH
Esemplare di macchina fotografica in cartone ( spessore 5 mm, per professionisti ) con custodia; sembra, dai test effettuati che possa tranquillamente sostituire la Nikon D800 e la Canon 5D Mark III.
Exemplaire de caméra en carton (épaisseur 5 mm) avec étui, paraît-il, des tests effectués, qui pourraient facilement remplacer le Nikon D800 et le Canon 5D Mark III.
At that time in 2008 you saw these warnings everywhere. There were a few religious organizations there at the time, rabble-rousing for this cause, which was mostly in their dirty little minds. Most are gone now because of budget cuts.
8 November 2019, EuroPCom 2019 Exploiting the media mix
EuroPCom 2019 #europcom @EuroPCom2019
Belgium - Brussels - November 2019
© European Union / Eric Herchaft
Dennis ABBOTT, former Managing Director, Communications and Media Relations, BCW Global
Des employés de la Société d'Exploitation de Kipoï (SEK), une filiale de l'entreprise australienne Tiger Ressources, préparent l’emballage de cathodes de cuivre pures à 99,999 %, dans l'usine d'extraction électrolytique par solvant à Kipoï, à 75 kilomètres à l'ouest de Lubumbashi, capitale de la province minière du Katanga, en République démocratique du Congo, le 9 mars 2015. - Employees of the Société d'Exploitation de Kipoï (SEK), a subsidiary of the Australian company Tiger Resources, are preparing the packing of copper cathodes pure at 99,999%, at the electrolytic solvent extraction plant in Kipoi, about 75 kilometers west of Lubumbashi, the capital of the mining province of Katanga, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, on March 9th, 2015.
Animals have the right to not be treated as property. Go Vegan!
From Animal Rights and Domesticated Nonhumans by Gary L Francione
(www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-rights-and-domesticat...):
"One aspect of my theory of animal rights, as articulated in Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? and other places, that troubles some animal advocates, is that if we accept the rights position, we ought not to bring any more domesticated nonhumans into existence. I apply this not only to animals we use for food, experiments, clothing, etc., but also to our nonhuman companions.
I can certainly understand that if you embrace the welfarist approach, which says that the use of nonhumans is morally acceptable as long as you treat them “humanely” and which sees the goal as better regulating animal use, you would reject my view. But if you, as I, see the primary problem of animal exploitation to be our use of nonhumans irrespective of whether we are “humane,” and regard the goal as the abolition of animal exploitation, then it is not clear to me why this position would cause you any difficulty.
The logic is simple. We treat animals as our property, as resources that we can use for our purposes. We bring billions of them into existence for the sole purpose of using and killing them. We have bred these animals to be dependent on us for their survival.
The central position of my rights theory is that we have no justification for treating animals as our property just as we had no justification for treating other humans as slaves. We have abolished human chattel slavery in most parts of the world; similarly, we should abolish animal slavery.
But what does that mean in the context of nonhumans? Should we “liberate” animals and let them wander freely in the streets? No, of course not. That would be as irresponsible as allowing small children to wander around. We should certainly care for those nonhumans whom we have already brought into existence but we should stop causing any more to come into existence. We have no justification for using nonhumans—however “humanely” we treat them.
There are two objections that I have heard in connection with this view.
First, there is the concern that we will lose “diversity” if we no longer have these domesticated nonhumans.
Even if continued domestication were necessary for biological diversity, that would not mean that it would be morally acceptable. We do not, however, have to address that issue. There is nothing “natural” about domesticated animals. They are creatures that we have created through selective breeding and confinement. To the extent that they have undomesticated relatives living in nature, we should certainly seek to protect those nonhumans first and foremost for their own sake and secondarily for the purposes of biological diversity. But our protection of presently existing domesticated nonhumans is not necessary for any sort of biological diversity.
Second, and more often, animal advocates express a difficulty with my view about domestication because they point to the fact that many of us live with nonhumans and treat them as members of our families. This arrangement, they argue, must certainly be morally acceptable.
As far as companion animals are concerned, some of us treat them as family members and some of us do not. But however we treat our dogs, cats, etc., they are property as far as the law is concerned. If you regard your dog as a member of your family and treat her well, the law will protect your decision just as the law will protect your decision to change the oil in your car every 1000 miles—the dog and the car are your property and if you wish to accord a higher value to your property, the law will protect your decision. But if you wish to accord your property a lower value and, for instance, have a guard dog who you keep chained in your yard and to whom you provide minimal food, water, and shelter—and no companionship or affection—the law will protect that decision as well.
The reality is that in the United States, most dogs and cats do not end up dying of old age in loving homes. Most have homes for a relatively short period of time before they are transferred to another owner, taken to a shelter, dumped, or taken to a veterinarian to be killed.
It does not matter whether we characterize an owner as a “guardian,” as some advocates urge. Such a characterization is meaningless. Those of us who live with companion animals are owners as far as the law is concerned and we have the legal right to treat our animals as we see fit with few limitations. Anticruelty laws do not even apply to the vast majority of instances in which humans inflict cruel treatment on nonhumans.
But, these advocates respond, we could, at least in theory, have a different and morally acceptable relationship with nonhumans. What if we abolished the property status of animals and required that we treat dogs and cats similar to the way we treat human children? What if humans who lived with dogs could no longer treat them instrumentally (e.g., as guard dogs, “show” dogs or cats, etc.) but had to treat them as family members? What if humans could not kill nonhuman companions except in instances in which at least some of us regard it as acceptable to allow assisted suicide in the human context (e.g., when the human is incurably ill and in great pain, etc.). Would it be acceptable to continue to breed nonhumans to be our companions then?
The answer is no.
Putting aside that the development of general standards of what would constitute treating nonhumans as “family members,” and the resolution of all the related issues, would be impossible as a practical matter, this position neglects to recognize that domestication itself raises serious moral issues irrespective of how the nonhumans involved are treated.
Domestic animals are dependent on us for when and whether they eat, whether they have water, where and when they relieve themselves, when they sleep, whether they get any exercise, etc. Unlike human children, who, except in unusual cases, will become independent and functioning members of human society, domestic animals are neither part of the nonhuman world nor fully part of our world. They remain forever in a netherworld of vulnerability, dependent on us for everything that is of relevance to them. We have bred them to be compliant and servile, or to have characteristics that are actually harmful to them but are pleasing to us. We may make them happy in one sense, but the relationship can never be “natural” or “normal.” They do not belong stuck in our world irrespective of how well we treat them.
This is more or less true of all domesticated nonhumans. They are perpetually dependent on us. We control their lives forever. They truly are “animal slaves.” We may be benevolent “masters,” but we really aren’t anything more than that. And that cannot be right.
My partner and I live with five rescued dogs. All five would be dead if we did not adopt them. We love them very much and try very hard to provide them the best of care and treatment. (And before anyone asks, all seven of us are vegans!) You would probably not find two people on the planet who enjoy living with dogs more than we do.
But if there were two dogs left in the universe and it were up to us as to whether they were allowed to breed so that we could continue to live with dogs, and even if we could guarantee that all dogs would have homes as loving as the one that we provide, we would not hesitate for a second to bring the whole institution of “pet” ownership to an end. We regard the dogs who live with us as refugees of sorts, and although we enjoy caring for them, it is clear that humans have no business continuing to bring these creatures into a world in which they simply do not fit.
There are some advocates who think that “animal rights” means that nonhumans have some sort of right to reproduce, so that it is wrong to sterilize nonhumans. If that view is correct, then we would be morally committed to allowing all domesticated species to continue to reproduce indefinitely. We cannot limit this “right of reproduction” to dogs and cats alone. Moreover, it makes no sense to say that we have acted immorally in domesticating nonhuman animals but we are now committed to allowing them to continue to breed. We made a moral mistake by domesticating nonhumans in the first place; what sense does it make to perpetuate it?
In sum, I can understand that welfarists, for whom treatment and not use is the primary moral issue, think that domestication and continued animal use is acceptable as long as we treat animals “humanely.” But I cannot understand why anyone who regards herself as an abolitionist thinks that the continued domestication of any nonhumans could be justified provided that we treat those animals well—any more than I can understand how anyone who regards herself as an abolitionist can be anything other than a vegan.
The subtitle of my book—Your Child or the Dog?—the notion of the child and the dog in the burning house (or on the lifeboat, or wherever) is meant to focus our attention on the fact that we seek to resolve moral conflicts between humans and animals. But we create those conflicts by, as it were, dragging the animal into the burning house by bringing her into existence as a resource for our use. We then wonder about how to resolve the conflict that we have created! That makes no sense.
If we took animals seriously, we would stop treating them as our resources, as our property. But that would mean an end to bringing nonhumans into existence so that we can use them for food, clothing, vivisection, or any other purpose, including for companionship.
Gary L. Francione"