• ZC3rr0r@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 hours ago

    This might actually be a genius malicious compliance play, seeing how the boycotts of American made goods and alcohol are largely a grassroots movement by the citizens.

    Appeasing the US by allowing their alcohol back on the shelves, only for it to largely sit there as unmoving product would definitely be a great way to honour the contract without reducing the impact of the message.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 minutes ago

      Appeasing the US by allowing their alcohol back on the shelves

      Except that we should have learned by now that trying to appease a country who won’t honor their own agreements is pointless.

      What guarantees can there be that the US won’t just reneg again after we appease them again?

      They should have to demonstrate some level of trustworthiness before we even think about backing down.

    • grte@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      46 minutes ago

      The issue with that is, by the time the US liquor is sitting on the shelf for sale the US producers already got paid. The liquor is first bought by provincial distributors, even in Alberta via the AGLC, and then sold to the public from government stores, or sold to private liquor stores who then sell to the public. So if that US liquor hits the shelf and we boycott it, it’s either our provincial governments or local liquor stores that take the hit. That’s why the provincial level bans are angering the US liquor industry so much.

      • ZC3rr0r@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        37 minutes ago

        Huh, TIL I guess. Still, of it doesn’t move it’s a single one time purchase of some alcohol. Still feels like a hollow “victory” to me.